I've just got a random idea (probably not new at all).
What about allowing to counter spells instead of attacks of opportunity (complete with one counter / round, more with a feat and probably high WIS instead of DEX - wisdom governs perception and probably the 'awareness of magic' in your surroundings). Casting spells as counters could easily be described as releasing the spell only as a disruptive impulse that cancels out enemy spell.
This would certainly breathe more attractiveness in counterspells without being overwhelming IMO.
What do you think about this?
Well, you need to counterspell with the same spell, or the same school (and level) of the spell with a feat. that limits the counterspelling a bit. Not to mention that enemy spells could still be more effective raining at the party than making an umbrella against the PCs. I think that this could be kept in check by sufficiently difficult dispel checks, and/or recquiring a spell of the same level+1 being used, if the enemy spellcaster doesn't have the same spell memorized or known.
Another option to AoO would be making the counterspell a move action, allowing the casers to cast and conterspell within the same round, but still sacrificing something. Current counterspell mechanic is still hardly ever used, which I think is a shame. I smell some fun potential in this, but this is hardly a final idea.
I don't currently have anything to contribute to this thread, but I really hope something comes of it. :)
I don't currently have anything to contribute to this thread, but I really hope something comes of it. :)
Me too. All this mechanic for a situation that I rarely witnessed (if ever) and done only once as a DM. It is also used a lot in fiction and especially in movies. I"d like to see it use more often on the table.
'findel
Perhaps the Pathfinder Duelist can give us some insight, as his Parry feature is similar in concept:
A spellcaster cannot cast multiple spells per round like the melee combatant has many iterative attacks (which are necessary for the Duelist to Parry), but getting your full allotment of iterative attacks requires a Full-Round Action. This could be an avenue to explore:
A spellcaster that casts a standard action spell as a full-round action may use an AoO to counterspell as an immediate out-of-turn action.
more later...
'findel
If it helps at all, there was an Oportunity Power metapsionic (psionic metamagic) that allowed you to replace an attack of oportunity for manifesting a power. It had an extra ¨cost¨equivalent to a quickened spell.
it was never overpowering I might add.
Interesting. Is there any way to make that work in a typical vancian casting situation (i.e. no power points or spell points)?
Well the easiest way would be to give it a spell slot increase akin to Quicken Spell (which is the same cost as in the psionic version) and make it count as an immediate action. And of course the restriction that it cannot be used if you already cast a quickened spell this round.
This means that it would come late in the wizard's career however, and the expense of great resources (4th level spell for the "quickened counterspell" plus whatever spell of the appropriate level for the counterspell itself).
[edit] or actually it would have to be countering spell of the appropriate level +4.
I mean, it needs to be somewhat restrictive, I just wonder if that would be so restrictive that the option would not be used more often than it already is (or isn't)...
Unlike a quickened spell, which is useful in almost any situation, counterspelling comes with its own set of restrictions (spell must first be identified, counter-spell must be identical spell , stated as spell being able to oppose, or be a dispel magic spell, in which case success isn't even guarantied).
Well, my two groups are currently playtesting our house-rule - basically, Counterspell becomes an Immediate Action, but you can only use it with the same spell (or those spells that allow for countering, like Haste and Slow, for example). Using Dispel Magic or the feat Improved Counterspell are still possible only as readied actions.
We will see if the method is manageable or not - of course, it would lead to a slight depowering of the caster classes, but since most people are afraid of the increasing power of those classes at high levels(CoDzilla and Batman above all others), maybe this could only be a good thing.
Obviously we will throw this rule out of the window (so to speak) if it shows to be too messy.
Well, current counterspell is a problem. It's almost a granted success when you get to it, but the recquirements for it almost ensure, that it's hardly ever used.
1.) You need to ready an action
That is by itself a bad thing to do in most of the situations (seriously, how often do you ready a spear against the charge...). Most of the time you want to wait for one of your allies to do something, but waiting for an enemy often results in wasted round and nobody has actually liked this IMO. Perhaps solving the problems with this would help.
2.) You need to identify the spell being cast.
No problem here. Counterspell is for pros who know what to do and have the means, so I wouldn't be affraid to keep the check a little on the hard side.
3.) Cast the same spell to counter.
Another problem. It's way too random to make counterspelling useful because of the sheer amount of spells, especially if you go non-core. Having the improved counterspell is a must, or you need to keep a load of handy dispels memorized. There is usually much better way to utilize these most of the time.
So the whole mechanic is pretty simple, but hardly a viable option most of the time. I know, this recap was hardly necessary, but now I can point toward places for possible improvements.
First suggestion, as I've already stated, would be get rid of readying actions. I'd rather have something like a counterspelling stance, which you take as a move action that would allow you to make one counterspell utill your next round, or allowing to do that from the start as an immediate action instead of the AoO.
Second would be allowing to counterspell with any spell of the same school from the start, but not an automatic success. I'd rather make it either an opposed caster level, or spellcraft check with spell level actually playing a huge role in the process (something like d20 + 5xSL +CL or spellcraft... NOT ACTUAL NUMBER, I'm way too lazy to do the math and I currently don't have enough time on my hands for playtesting) Which would make it matter with what do you want to counterspell. Improved Counterspell feat would then allow to counterspell with any spell, but with a penalty (-5 perhaps, just like they were one level lower).
Using spellraft has it's merits - it would allow gish and weak spell casters to actually poke the stronger casters once in a while, but it would also put more emphasis on spellcraft skill. ANother thing to consider.
I don't have problems with allowing to counterspell wit 0 level spells, but they shuldn't have even the usual 1/2 SL they are normally given.
All in all this could allow the casters to solve their problems in more mystical ways by struggling with each other while leaving more room for the melee characters to do their thing (a little naive wiew point, I know).
What do you think.
If it helps at all, there was an Oportunity Power metapsionic (psionic metamagic) that allowed you to replace an attack of oportunity for manifesting a power. It had an extra ¨cost¨equivalent to a quickened spell.
it was never overpowering I might add.
As Laurefindel already said - losing a spell 4 levels higher is hardly a more atractive choice. I don't think that this'd help to make c#*#erspells more popular at all.
A while back I posted a conversion of the Spell domain (Complete Divine/Spell Compendium). Not directly relevant, except that as the 8th level active granted power, I gave Spell domain clerics the ability to counterspell as an immediate action (assuming they had the right spell to do so); to counterbalance it, the cleric gave up their standard action on their next turn. In essence, it reverses the readied action -- instead of deciding beforehand that you're going to counter, you get to wait and see what spell is being cast, then decide if it's worth countering. You still lose your standard either way.
A while back I posted a conversion of the Spell domain (Complete Divine/Spell Compendium). Not directly relevant, except that as the 8th level active granted power, I gave Spell domain clerics the ability to counterspell as an immediate action (assuming they had the right spell to do so); to counterbalance it, the cleric gave up their standard action on their next turn. In essence, it reverses the readied action -- instead of deciding beforehand that you're going to counter, you get to wait and see what spell is being cast, then decide if it's worth countering. You still lose your standard either way.
I'd rather avoid losing the standard action, but that would be an option. It prevents complete lockdown of two casters. After counterspelling, you are out for one round, so the opponent can cast another spell without fear of being bothered...
|
Might I humbly suggest:
You are quick to counter spells at the cost of focusing on combat.
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, Improved Counterspell
Benefit: You may counterspell as an immediate action, but you cannot cast defensively, you cannot make attacks of opportunity until the beginning of your next turn, and the DC to identify the spell being cast is increased by +5.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only counterspell as a readied action.
Highlights:
Gotta burn a feat to get it, a feat most full-casters don't care about (Combat Reflexes).
You lose your swift action on your next turn.
If anyone threatens you, AoO (which could mean wasted spell).
This could still result in two casters canceling each other out though, but if that's the only problem this might be a good place to start.
I too have never really seen the Counterspell effect in use and think that it could really need some alteration.
Making it into an immediate action without an at least slightly costly feat though, strikes me as far too powerful. I like that for example feather fall has been made immediate for PFRPG since it makes it far more useful.
To me there is multiple options to solve this with, but after some thought I have reached one conclusion I really like:
The "Alike to Oppurtunity Power Feat" option.
Advantages:
If you make it able to change a counterspell into a immediate action it will give a good use to something that's normally as good as ignored.
It won't be too powerful if it's either limited to counterspelling use only or removes the ability to use Quicken Spell within the same action.
It still makes the counterspell in question dependant on being prepared and allthough an "Immediate Dispel Magic" will of course be vastly powerful, it will still take up a 7th level spell slot, which can hardly be considered a low cost (it'll after all still not have a more powerful effect than the base Dispel Magic, except being useful immediately).
Of course it will give the well-prepared spellcaster the opportunity to prepare "immediate" spells for all the opponents spells, if said well-prepared caster uses an efficient Scrying Spell on the opponents spell preparation - that will however once again require VAST resources, which makes it much less overpowered - how many "Immediate Spells" can one prepare if it takes (like Quicken) 4 extra spell levels?
Disadvantages:
It is not useful before a high level, but that never stopped Quicken Spell from being awesome, and I doubt that it'll stop this one.
If you do not prohibit the use of "Immediate Spell" and Quicken Spell within the same round or make "Immediate Spell" restricted to counterspelling use, people can prolong their turn almost indefinitely on a high level.
It still provides little change to the "counterspelling" issue on early levels, where it is perhaps more longed for than anywhere else. A possible solution to this could be a lesser version that permits you to (without the level increase) use a spell as an immediate action 1/day as pr. the 3.5 "Sudden ..." feat (Complete Arcane) allthough that would be incredibly powerful unless you made it similar to the "Sudden Quicken Spell" feat in prerequisites, which would - again - delay the level it's available on.
After discussing this issue shortly I have come to the conclusion that two feats would probably solve this:
Immediate Spell: Much alike to Quicken Spell, but prohibits the use of Quicken Spell within the same action and has the same high cost of +4 levels. Makes you able to cast the spell as an immediate action.
Immediate Counterspelling: Akin to the "Sudden ..." metamagics this feat does not use a higher level spell slot, is used without preparation (for those spellcasters) 1/day, but can be used only for counterspelling. Gives the same effect as "Immediate Spell" apart from that. To further limit this feat, it should probably not be allowed multiple times and stacking since that would make it almost too useful, allthough this last comment is a thought only.
Any thoughts on this issue?
On the matter of whether it should require caster level checks and such I must say that I never found it as much of a problem allthough the solution you offer seems quite handy.
I think that Spellcraft check to determine what spell is being cast is however already 1 test for the action and adding an additional might be a bit obstructive to fluent play.
In any case I think that the check should be an opposed caster level check, with no additional modifiers (unless you use a higher level spell to counter with in which case I believe the difference between the spell levels should apply as a positive modifier to the roll of the caster that uses the higher level spell).
Just my input to the subject - thanks for writing it, it's a really interesting an important matter, that have annoyed me often.
Might I humbly suggest:
You are quick to counter spells at the cost of focusing on combat.
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, Improved Counterspell
Benefit: You may counterspell as an immediate action, but you cannot cast defensively, you cannot make attacks of opportunity until the beginning of your next turn, and the DC to identify the spell being cast is increased by +5.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only counterspell as a readied action.Highlights:
Gotta burn a feat to get it, a feat most full-casters don't care about (Combat Reflexes).
You lose your swift action on your next turn.
If anyone threatens you, AoO (which could mean wasted spell).This could still result in two casters canceling each other out though, but if that's the only problem this might be a good place to start.
I really like this option too, it seems to be simple and elegant. I believe that adding it along with my additions will make for several, excellent and varied options (I might even run a playtest on this during my current campaign or a later if my players are up for it. If they are I'll of course give you guys the results).
I do think that having Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite might even be too much of a barrier, allthough not one I would mind having.
I'd like to avoid both of the suggestions of yours Luthia actually.
Counterspell x times / day is actually regulated by sacrificing the spells themselves IMO and using a spell of one level higher is more than enough IMO. Using spell slots of the same level + 4 is an incredible overkill. It makes spells of level 6 and more uncancellable untill you go epic (which is kinda counterproductive... you want to counter the big ones, not minor annoyances). You don't drop a chance to summon an ankyllosaurus just to prevent the other guy from summoning a dire rat...
Might I humbly suggest:
You are quick to counter spells at the cost of focusing on combat.
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, Improved Counterspell
Benefit: You may counterspell as an immediate action, but you cannot cast defensively, you cannot make attacks of opportunity until the beginning of your next turn, and the DC to identify the spell being cast is increased by +5.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only counterspell as a readied action.Highlights:
Gotta burn a feat to get it, a feat most full-casters don't care about (Combat Reflexes).
You lose your swift action on your next turn.
If anyone threatens you, AoO (which could mean wasted spell).This could still result in two casters canceling each other out though, but if that's the only problem this might be a good place to start.
Hmm, I don't actually get it why I should burn feats to allow me to counterspell effectively. There should be a chance to do that from the start with some chance for success. Otherwise the feat isn't bad, tough. Still a bit too much of an auto-success on higher levels if you have the spells to do it, but the thought is sound. What about using the feat being a swift action itself. Wouldn't the tracking of what actions have I already used be simpler?
Hmm, I don't actually get it why I should burn feats to allow me to counterspell effectively. There should be a chance to do that from the start with some chance for success. Otherwise the feat isn't bad, tough. Still a bit too much of an auto-success on higher levels if you have the spells to do it, but the thought is sound. What about using the feat being a swift action itself. Wouldn't the tracking of what actions have I already used be simpler?Might I humbly suggest:
You are quick to counter spells at the cost of focusing on combat.
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, Improved Counterspell
Benefit: You may counterspell as an immediate action, but you cannot cast defensively, you cannot make attacks of opportunity until the beginning of your next turn, and the DC to identify the spell being cast is increased by +5.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only counterspell as a readied action.Highlights:
Gotta burn a feat to get it, a feat most full-casters don't care about (Combat Reflexes).
You lose your swift action on your next turn.
If anyone threatens you, AoO (which could mean wasted spell).This could still result in two casters canceling each other out though, but if that's the only problem this might be a good place to start.
I'd say that making the use of the feat a swift action is the only way to explain why the round's swift action disappear without making it seem awkward...
Well... losing a swift action next round is kinda... meh.
Yes, exactly... I can't help wondering why you would loose it, since there's no obvious reason.
I don't think there's anything too wrong with the current rules, but, if I may suggest, you could balance the whole thing by looking at the current limit of 1 spell/round...
Basically, in any given round, you can only cast 1 spell, or more if it's a swift or immediate action spell. When counterspelling, you are allowed to counter a spell being cast as long as:
1) Your turn in initiative has already occured (or you are holding/delaying)
2) You have not yet cast a spell as a standard action OR an immediate action this round
If the mage throws an alchemical item and uses a quickened spell, then the enemy tries to cast, the mage can respond by countering. The benefit he has by gaining initiative is he can cast or counter, but not both. He CAN still take an attack and use a quickened spell, though.
Well, that's exactly one of the things that I don't like about it. You either cast, or prepare to counterspell.
Current wording suggests that you announce that you designate a foe, whom you are watching closely for any attempts at spellcasting. If he does so, you try to identify the spell and then counter it, if you want to do so. That sounds reasonable. Now toward reality.
Round 1:
You prepare to counterspell enemy wizard.
The Wizard casts shield... you don't have it prepared and don't want to waste dispel magic for that. You did nothing.
Round 2:
You prepare to counterspell enemy Wizard.
The Wizard casts black tentacles. You counterspell it with your dispell magic... oh noes bad dispel check... that was the shiniest round of the dispel fight, because there could be two mages looking silly of 6 seconds instead of one.
Round 3:
You prepare co c*!@erspell enemy Wizard.
He shoots you with his crossbow and his druid friend casts summon nature's ally right behid you. You did nothing
The problem with ready action is, that you state what will you do and under what condition will you do it. Losing the action if you don't meet the condition, or when you don't want to do the thing.
The best suggestion for dispelling I've heard so far was to prepare and slam enemy caster in the face with a fireball as soon as he attempts to cast. It isn't 100 % sure, but the target has to make concentration check vs. 25 (more actually - 10d6 fireball hits for 35 average) + SL even if he makes the Ref save, unless he has some protection going on and you still get a chance to fry his allies. Why bother to counter then?
c!#&erspell
That's twice now... sticky O key? :)
I'm gonna chime in with a vote for rolling Improved Counterspell into the base mechanic. Changes highlighted:
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell is most effectively countered by itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. Alternately, you may counter with another spell of the same school as the spell you are countering, but that spell must be at least one level higher than the spell to be countered. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
...and then...
Benefit: You can counter a spell as an immediate action.
If you ready an action to counterspell you may use a spell of the same school which is the same level as the target spell, or gain a +2 bonus on dispel checks if countering with dispel magic.
Normal: You can only counter a spell as a readied action, if you counter with a different spell of the same school it must be at least one level higher than the target spell, and you gain no bonus to dispel checks when counterspelling.
|
|
I think it could work like this...
Counterspell with Dispel Magic or Exact Same Spell = works normally
Counterspell with any spell from same school = opposed spellcraft roll between casters, with counterspeller starting with a -2 penalty. The counterspeller gets an additional +1/-1 modifier on the spellcraft roll based on whether he expended a spell higher or lower than the spell to be countered.
example: Caster A casts a 4th level evocation spell. Caster B counterspells with a 5th level evocation spell. Spellcraft opposed roll with caster B having a -1 penalty (-2 to start, +1 for one level higher spell).
As for actions, you could allow the counterspeller to try to counterspell "out of turn" at the cost of his next standard action.
Every round you waste counterspelling is a round when demon necromancer's minions and allies beat your party. You are not healing or casting area spells... this sword always had two sharp edges.
I don't want the lockdown to be complete, but there sure needs to be a viable way to interact with spellcasting in a way, that doesn't detract from game fun. That's why I'd like the counterspelling to be an opposed check. Not automaic, but still viable.
The amount of counterspelling one person wants to do is limited by the daily amount of spells one can cast and amount of actions he can take (be it attack of opportunity or swift actions).
I don't think that making the counterspells more useful would increase the overall power of the casters, because it affects mostly only the other spellcasters.
c!#&erspellThat's twice now... sticky O key? :)
I must hate current mechanic more than I thought... the keyboard on my notebook isn't particularly hypersensitive.
Anyway I'd prefer the counterspell to be a move action, swift with improved counterspell. Wasted in the round after which you want to counterspell. Standard action still could find better use IMO.
oh yeah and casters definetly need a power boost.
I said that it wouldn't. Less spells in play, more room for swords, no?
Think about it, messing with other spellcasters is ussually up to the melee types. Are you gonna also take that away by letting spellcasters do that too and better?
Actually... how much do you think the'll want to do it? You still loose by dropping more powerful spells to prevent other spells from taking effect. And the casters can also do it better under current rules, just by other means. They can mess with anyone, so whay not let them mess with each other while the others do some good old hack'n'slash?
|
because then you have parties where the wizard goes quickened grease, evards black tentacles and still has the chance to counterspell the mage´s fireball (as a move action which was proposed earlier). And of course you have all the melee types to take care of what´s left. But evryone knows who did the most on that encounter.
Think about it, messing with other spellcasters is ussually up to the melee types. Are you gonna also take that away by letting spellcasters do that too and better?
I disagree with that, but I get the point that you don't like the original idea.
Don't get me wrong, there is a concern in 'taking away from the fighter', I'm just not sure it is true. If the caster takes care of the other caster's spell, it leaves new options to the fighter type. New option do not means less options. Hacking the other spellcaster ASAP is still a viable options IMO...
because then you have parties where the wizard goes quickened grease, evards black tentacles and still has the chance to counterspell the mage´s fireball (as a move action which was proposed earlier). And of course you have all the melee types to take care of what´s left. But evryone knows who did the most on that encounter.
And the tentacles could in turn be countered by the other mage... and the grease as well if he had the improved counterspell. So two of our mages have canceled each other out and now it's fighter's turn.
I don't think that melee character's primary role is to hack enemy spellcaster. Melee character should trash anything that is unfortunate enough to get within his reach. To mess with spellcasters you usually send more mobile types like the rogue or monk, or perhaps a ranger to nail him to nearest wall before he manages to put up the defenses.
|
|
Yes, exactly... I can't help wondering why you would loose it, since there's no obvious reason.
Because that's what using an immediate action does.
Well... losing a swift action next round is kinda... meh.
If you mean that consuming a swift action is little drawback, I agree. But look and what a caster has to go through to get that feat. It shouldn't be too restrictive.