In the wishlist thread, someone mentioned that they would like to see counterspelling changed so that it is used more often. After reading that, I had some interesting ideas for house rules that would make counterspelling happen more often.
First increase dispelling options
Lesser Dispel Magic Level 1 Spell for any class that has dispel magic. Works just like dispel magic except, there is no AoE option, magic items and permenant magic effects cannot be effected, the maximum caster level bonus to dispel checks is 5, and the spell can only remove a single magic effect.
Second, any dispel magic spell can be cast to counterspell as an immediate action, but this imposes a -5 to the dispel check.
Further, a successful spellcraft to determine the spells being cast check gives a +2 on the level check when countering spells with dispel magic.
Third, a new set of spells.
Counterspell I-IX(Abjuration)
This spell functions similar to dispel magic, but it can only be used to counter spells that are being cast.
Make a level check similar to dispel magic.
The check is 1d20 + caster level + spell level (- 5 if counterspell is cast as an immediate action) (+ 2 is the caster makes a successful spellcraft roll to determine the spell being cast) vs a target of 10 + the spell level of the spell being countered.
If the result is less than the target, the counter spelling fails.
If the result is greater than the target, reduce the caster level of incomming spell by 1 for every point by which the roll succeded. If the incomming spell is reduced to 0 or less, it fizzles, and the caster suffers backlash damage equal to 1d6 for every 2 levels of reduction beyond 0, will save for half damage.
The maximum caster level reduction is equal to the spell level of the spell times 3.
Example: A level 9 bard uses counterspell IV to counter a level 5 wizard's fireball as an immediate action. The bard made a successful spellcraft roll. The bard rolls a 14 on the counterspell roll for a result of 14 + 9 + 4 + 2 - 5 = 24 vs 10 + 3 = 13. That is a reduction of 11(maximum possible reduction is 12 with a 4th level counterspell). This reduces the incoming spell -6 causing the spell to fail, and the wizard to take 3d6 backlash.
Thoughts or ideas?
Your ideas are pretty interesting, and I had a few thoughts.
1.
"Lesser Dispel Magic Level 1 Spell for any class that has dispel magic. Works just like dispel magic except, there is no AoE option, magic items and permanent magic effects cannot be effected, the maximum caster level bonus to dispel checks is 5, and the spell can only remove a single magic effect."
This seems like a pretty balanced effect; the limit of 5 is, I think, very important. But wouldn't this be fairly redundant with Counter-spell I?
EDIT: Except it can target on-going spell effects as well as being used for countering. It seems that an extraordinary roll on the die could result in a first level spell canceling a very high level spell. Hmmm.
2.
"Second, any dispel magic spell can be cast to counter-spell as an immediate action, but this imposes a -5 to the dispel check."
At first glance, I think this should require a feat to use. The reason being that this sort of effect is similar in power {in my opinion} to quicken spell and the rest of the metamagic feats.
Immediate Counter-spell {Metamagic}
Prerequisites: access to any of the Dispel Magic or Counter-spell spells
Benefit : Taking this feat allows any dispel spell to be used as an immediate action, albeit with a -5 penalty to the caster level check.
Normal : a character attempting the 'counter a spell as it is being cast' action normally needs a readied action
Improved Immediate Counter-spell {Metamagic}
Prerequisites: Immediate Counter-spell
Benefit : This feat reduces the penalty for using dispel as an immediate action to -2
As far as the spellcraft check granting a bonus... doesn't one need to make a spellcraft check just for the privilege of casting a counter-spell? One needs to know what one is countering, no? Or is that just for countering a spell with the identical spell? I'm not quite sure about this.
3.
As for the Counter-spell I-IX... I think as you have them outlined here, they are slightly over-powered. Being able to both counter your opponent AND cause him damage is similar in a way to getting off two spells, isn't it? One counter and one for damage? Additionally, your computation of the DC {10+spell level} seems extremely low. I doesn't take into account either caster level, or ability bonus {usually associated with dispel attempts, no?}. Perhaps a target DC of 10 + caster level {because dispels usually go against the power level of the CASTER, not the power level of the spell} + applicable ability bonus.
Then the example from above would look something like this: {granting the +2 for the Spellcraft check}
Example: A level 9 bard uses counter-spell IV to counter a level 5 wizard's fireball as an immediate action. The bard made a successful spellcraft roll. The bard rolls a 14 on the counter-spell roll for a result of 14 + 9 + 4 + 2 - 5 = 24 vs 10 + 5 {CL} + 4 {18 Int}. That is a reduction of 5 (maximum possible reduction is 12 with a 4th level counter-spell). This reduces the incoming spell to -2 causing the spell to fail, and the wizard to take 1d6 backlash.
This seems a little more in balance {with a roll of 14 after all}
A caster level check roll of 9 on the die would be the minimum for successful dispelling... and IMHO that seems pretty reasonable for a CL 9 vs a CL 5; it equals a 60% success rate.
If the caster levels were equal using this example {CL 5 vs CL 5}, your dispeller would need 13 {40% success rate}.
This same caster would need an 8 if he used a readied action rather than an immediate action. {65% successes.... maybe a little high?}
I wonder if perhaps the DC should be 10 + Caster Level + Ability Bonus + Spell level. This would actually make it a challenge for the dispeller, because... if we go back to the first example, the 9th level caster vs the 5th level caster... using a readied action, the Bard would need only a 4 on the die to dispel the wizard's fireball. This might be a little to easy, no?
All in all, I like where you seem to be going very much. I just wouldn't like to see the whole world dispel-crazy 'cause it winds up over-buff, and I think that someone who wants to specialize in dispelling should have to invest some of his/her {extremely valuable} feats for the interrupt candy.
Nice ideas. I just wanted to add mine. Thanks for the inspiration.
Your ideas are pretty interesting, and I had a few thoughts.
1.
"Lesser Dispel Magic Level 1 Spell for any class that has dispel magic. Works just like dispel magic except, there is no AoE option, magic items and permanent magic effects cannot be effected, the maximum caster level bonus to dispel checks is 5, and the spell can only remove a single magic effect."This seems like a pretty balanced effect; the limit of 5 is, I think, very important. But wouldn't this be fairly redundant with Counter-spell I?
EDIT: Except it can target on-going spell effects as well as being used for countering. It seems that an extraordinary roll on the die could result in a first level spell canceling a very high level spell. Hmmm.
It is possible, but very unlikely. By the current rules, if a level 10 caster gets a roll a 20 on dispel magic, they can counter a level 9 spell cast by a level 20 caster.
The spellcraft bonus makes it a little easier, but the DC of the spellcraft check is 15 + 2 x spell level, so the odds of a low level caster making a spellcraft check against a high level spell are also slim.
2.
"Second, any dispel magic spell can be cast to counter-spell as an immediate action, but this imposes a -5 to the dispel check."At first glance, I think this should require a feat to use. The reason being that this sort of effect is similar in power {in my opinion} to quicken spell and the rest of the metamagic feats.
Immediate Counter-spell {Metamagic}
Prerequisites: access to any of the Dispel Magic or Counter-spell spells
Benefit : Taking this feat allows any dispel spell to be used as an immediate action, albeit with a -5 penalty to the caster level check.
Normal : a character attempting the 'counter a spell as it is being cast' action normally needs a readied actionImproved Immediate Counter-spell {Metamagic}
Prerequisites: Immediate Counter-spell
Benefit : This feat reduces the penalty for using dispel as an immediate action to -2As far as the spellcraft check granting a bonus... doesn't one need to make a spellcraft check just for the privilege of casting a counter-spell? One needs to know what one is countering, no? Or is that just for countering a spell with the identical spell? I'm not quite sure about this.
It is necessary. IMO, there are 2 reasons that nobody counterspells. It is boring, and it requires you to skip your normal action to ready for a counterspell. This is to deal with the second part. The idea is to allow anyone to counterspell as an immediate action, but at a penalty. You can still counter as an standard readied action if you want to avoid the -5 penalty.
That said, I am not sure that -5 is enough of a penalty. I am thinking -8 is more reasonable. -8 is 8 caster levels which is 4 spell levels for a wizard of sorceror. 4 spell levels is the cost of quicken spell metamagic.
A feats for reducing the penalty is a great idea.
3.
As for the Counter-spell I-IX... I think as you have them outlined here, they are slightly over-powered. Being able to both counter your opponent AND cause him damage is similar in a way to getting off two spells, isn't it? One counter and one for damage? Additionally, your computation of the DC {10+spell level} seems extremely low. I doesn't take into account either caster level, or ability bonus {usually associated with dispel attempts, no?}. Perhaps a target DC of 10 + caster level {because dispels usually go against the power level of the CASTER, not the power level of the spell} + applicable ability bonus.
Then the example from above would look something like this: {granting the +2 for the Spellcraft check}
Example: A level 9 bard uses counter-spell IV to counter a level 5 wizard's fireball as an immediate action. The bard made a successful spellcraft roll. The bard rolls a 14 on the counter-spell roll for a result of 14 + 9 + 4 + 2 - 5 = 24 vs 10 + 5 {CL} + 4 {18 Int}. That is a reduction of 5 (maximum possible reduction is 12 with a 4th level counter-spell). This reduces the incoming spell to -2 causing the spell to fail, and the wizard to take 1d6 backlash.
This seems a little more in balance {with a roll of 14 after all}
A caster level check roll of 9 on the die would be the minimum for successful dispelling... and IMHO that seems pretty reasonable for a CL 9 vs a CL 5; it equals a 60% success rate.
If the caster levels were equal using this example {CL 5 vs CL 5}, your dispeller would need 13 {40% success rate}.
This same caster would need an 8 if he used a readied action rather than an immediate action. {65% successes.... maybe a little high?}
I wonder if perhaps the DC should be 10 + Caster Level + Ability Bonus + Spell level. This would actually make it a challenge for the dispeller, because... if we go back to the first example, the 9th level caster vs the 5th level caster... using a readied action, the Bard would need only a 4 on the die to dispel the wizard's fireball. This might be a little to easy, no?
All in all, I like where you seem to be going very much. I just wouldn't like to see the whole world dispel-crazy 'cause it winds up over-buff, and I think that someone who wants to specialize in dispelling should have to invest some of his/her {extremely valuable} feats for the interrupt candy.
Nice ideas. I just wanted to add mine. Thanks for the inspiration.
The opposing caster level is in there. You make the check, then you reduce the caster level of the incomming spell by the amount you succeed by. You have to reduce the caster level of the incomming spell to 0 before you have a chance to deal damage. The difficulty of counterspell is actually higher because unlike dispel magic it takes into account the spell level and the caster level of the opposing spell.
The advantages of counterspell over dispel magic is that you can have a partial success. If my opponent is casting a level 9 fireball by the party, and I counterspell and only beat the roll by 3, I turn it into a level 6 fireball. This also allowed for groups to work together counterspelling.
Example:
level 10 enemy wizard casts a fireball.
Player 1 level 7 bard casts counterspell I as a readied action, and rolls an 8.
Player 2 level 6 sorc casts dispel magic as an immediate action.
It works best if you apply counterspells before dispels
Assuming the bard makes the spellcraft check, the bard gets a result of 8(d20 roll) + 7(caster level) + 1(spell level) + 2(spell craft) = 18 vs 10(base) + 3(spell level) = 13. That is a reduction of 5, but counterspell I is limited to a maximum reduction of 3, so the fireball becomes a level 7 fireball. The bard would have to use a counterspell IV to even have a chance to completely counter the fireball, and even then they bard could do at most 1d6 damage.
Now, the sorcerer only needs a 17 on a caster level check to dispel the spell. Since they are casting as an immediate action, they would need to roll 17 + 5 - 2 - 6 = 14 on their d20 as long as they make a successful spellcraft check.
The other reason no one counterspells is because it is boring. The damage is to let the counterspell feel like they are doing something more than just stopping the opposing spells. Without the damage component, you are better off readying a damaging spell and hoping your can do enough damage to break the wizards concentration.
Essentiall, the bard made it easier for the sorc to dispel the spell by weakening it. Even if the sorc fails, the spell will still do less damage.
Beyond that, I am thinking that spell focus(Abjuration) and greater spell focus(Abjuration) should add their bonus to dispel magic and counterspell checks and those feats should be prereqs for any other counterspelling feats.
I am also thinking of scrapping the dispel magic spells and replacing them with dispel magic I-IX. IE have a dispel magic for every spell level. The max caster level is spell level X 3 1/3, and the maximum number of effects that cap be dispelled is the spell level squared. So a Dispel Magic I would be max caster level of 3 and can only dispel 1 effect. Dispel Magic IV would be max caster level of 13 and can dispel up for 16 effects.
Some other feats I came up with
Improved Counterspell - adds a +2 to counterspell checks, requires spell focus(Abjuration)
Improved Dispelling - adds a +2 to dispel magic checks, requires spell focus(Abjuration)
Mastery of Counterspells - You may spontaneously convert any spell to a counterspell of the same level. Requires improved Counterspell.
Mastery of Dispelling - You may spontaneously convert any spell to a Dispel Magic of the same level. Requires Improved Dispelling.
Which is why the current extant rules for counterspelling needs a serious enema as I've yet to encounter anyone who uses it effectively in its current form.
Thoughts or ideas?Nobody counterspells because of three issues.
It takes a readied action that is wasted if there's no spell to counter.
It doesn't always work.
You're almost always better off prepping any sort of attack to interrupt the spell. You still have issue #1, you ameliorate but still have issue #2, and you still have #3. You also add a new issue that you need to know/prepare a spell that is nearly completely useless except for counterspelling.
I think this will have the opposite effect of the one you want.
Yes, those are the reasons no one counterspells.
The answer to number 1 is allowing counterspelling to be used as an immediate action at a penalty. This allows a mage to use normal spells on their turn and still have a chance(abet a reduced one) to counterspell.
There is no way around number 2. Having all your spells countered 100% of the time would completely suck to be on the recieving end. With the way the counterspell spell works, you have a very high chance of having some effect, even if that effect is just reducing the damage of the incomming spell. Having 100% reliability in countering spells would be like a level 20 warrior fighting a level 1 fighter, boring, and not much fun to be on the receiving end.
On number 3, with these rules, you can do both. Cast a counterspell as an immediate action and try to interrupt the spell, or cast a counterspell as an immediate action and another counterspell as a readied action.
Counterspelling....UontercSplleing
I am thinking that only when you know the opponent is going to cast spells and what kind.
I have the improved counterspelling feat and use it to counter within the same school.
IF (big if) PC's research opponents and atrocities committed they might know the NPC is fond of finger of death or fireball.
One problem is the all or nothing aspect of counterspell. Take fireball for example you counterspell the caster has 10d6 you can only cast a 6d6 fireball.
You counter the 6d6 and reduce his 10d6 fireball to a 4d6, or you can add metamagic feats. Counterspelling should be spontaneous ie you stop what you are doing and make the counter attempt (via quickened spell) and then you lose your next turn....
Counterspelling works (IF)....The answer is not stack many feats on it!
The problem is that counterspelling is so weak compared to other options, there really is no reason to do it.
Example: I am a level 8 wizard up against a level 8 sorcerer. I have done my research, and I know the sorc love the fireball spell. I have 2 fireballs memorized.
Option 1: Ready to counterspell. The sorc may choose to not cast a fireball, in which case I may have just wasted my turn. The sorc casts a fireball, I counterspell it, the sorc will play it smart and try to use different spells after that.
Option 2: Ready to cast my fireball to disrupt the sorc's spell casting. If the sorc casts ANY spell, I cast my fireball doing an average of 28 damage(DC 19). A sorc has around a +4 reflex save and thus will 70% chance to fail their save. That is a DC 41 concentration check. The Sorc has a maybe a +15 with a 24 charisma(assuming sorc has +4 item). Even if they make their reflex save, they are still up against a DC 27 check that they have 60% chance of failing.
In short, a 100% chance to cancel a spell IF they cast a spell you have memorized vs a 88% chance to disrupt their spellcasting AND you deal an average of 23.8 damage to the sorc. Which would you choose?
|
I often thought along these lines... As a DM I've never had a player try to counterspell and I always assumed that it was because it's too difficult.
the War of the Burning Sky Player's Guide (FREE HERE) contains a spell cancel that is basically the dispel meagic rules used against spells being cast. Those Inquisitors were pretty scary (trading turn undead for the ability to dispel magic)...
Cancel might work, now about that feat that lets you replace spells in the "lists".
That helps, but the more I think about it, you need some method(feat chain, class ability, etc.) that lets you counterspell as an immediate action. Having to use a readied action to counterspell is a major part of the reason counterspelling is never used. There are just so many better uses of readied actions.
I have to say, I like the idea of a mechanic that reduces the caster level of an opponent's spell. It would be less frustrating to me to be able to at least make *some* dent in anothers caster's Meteor Swarm or Destruction, rather than the all-or-nothing d20 roll of a Dispel Magic.
Perhaps something like this, either as a feat or a class ability?
Dampen Magic
You can weaken your foes' spells.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast spells
Benefit: As an immediate action, you can expend some of your spell energy to weaken the effect of a spell being cast within 30 feet of you. Select one of your memorized spells/unused daily spell slots. That spell is expended as if you had cast it. The targeted spell, if it is successfully cast, then has its caster level reduced by the level of the spell you expended to power this ability. You must be able to see the spell's caster and must have line of effect. If the caster level of the resulting spell is reduced to zero or less, the spell fails entirely.
Thoughts? It feels to me (both from experience and from the discussion here) that counterspelling is most often done by wizards as opposed to any other spellcaster; with that in mind, perhaps this could be a freebie feat given to wizards, or if that's too strong at least make this feat available as one of their bonus feats at every 5th level.
For a harsher effect, this could also be changed to fizzle the opposing spell if its caster level falls below the minimum needed to cast it.
There was a little known item in the Magic Item Compendium called the Ring of Counterspelling (Or something of that nature).
It was around 10,000 GP and it could store a single spell of any level that you could use to counterspell as an immediate action. Throw a Dispel Magic in there and you're good to go. The problem is it doesn't help lower level characters. Maybe a lesser version of the item with a level limit? To prevent infringement, I suggest the name "Ring of Spell Disruption", the level limit, and possibly a limit to Dispel Magic spells only.
The problem I see with Counterspell I-IX is that it gives sorcerers an advantage over wizards, since they can spontaneously turn a slot into a counterspell, whereas the wizard has to reserve the slot in advance. In a duel between a wizard and a sorcerer, this is a decisive advantage, unless the wizard loads a significant portion of slots with Counterspell (taking a lot of fun out of being a wizard). The negative impact on the game is that the party will come to rely on the sorcerer for counterspelling in the same way that clerics were once stuck with the job of healing everybody.
Wouldn't these ideas work just as well without Counterspell I-IX if you just let the spells that already work as counterspells use the same rules you suggested for Counterspell I-IX? That way the wizard still gets some advantage from his versatility, and can hope to find a spell that the sorcerer cannot counter all day. To that end, I don't think it should be possible to counterspell with Dispel Magic as an immediate action. Maybe a feat could let you ready Dispel Magic with a move action instead of a standard action at the same -5 (or -8) penalty.
I really like the Ring of Counterspelling as long as it doesn't take Dispel Magic and instead provides multiple slots.
I just thought of one way I might consider adding Counterspell I-IX. It would be to require that it be prepared against a specific school of magic. For the sorcerer, that would mean permanently learning, for example, Counterspell (evocation) or Counterspell (enchantment). Also it would add a -2 non-specificity penalty. None of these would work in the Ring of Counterspelling.
I think this keeps counterspelling fun.
This led me to wonder if you can counter abjuration spells, but the rules say the target must be "within range". I think it would actually be interesting to allow it, as a way to ensure that your offensive spells are not blocked. (Of course the abjuration could no longer be countered once it was already cast.) Used as a counterspell, an abjuration with a range of personal would need to acquire range. I'd suggest Short (25 ft + 5 ft per 2 caster levels) but with a -2 penalty and an additional -1 penalty per 5 ft range increment beyond 25 ft. For example, to ensure the success of your Magic Missile you could use Shield to counter your target's use of Shield. You would not be allowed to counter a spell used as a counterspell. (Shield does not counter Magic Missile, it negates all Magic Missile spells cast at you.) Partial success against an abjuration spell would make it easier to dispel.
Since you still need to be lucky enough to have the right spell to counterspell, I think the penalty for counterspelling as an immediate action should be only -4 (-2 with the Improved Counterspell feat). Counterspelling would never be automatic just because you have the right spell for countering. A counterspell readied as a move action could be used with no penalty, and one readied as a standard action could gain a +4 bonus. I really like how the OP's idea allows partial success and cooperation of multiple casters to increase the chances of complete success (and even backlash).
I don't think I like the idea of requiring a feat to counterspell as an immediate action. It improves gameplay enough that it should be available to all casters without a feat tax.
Another interesting feat could be Devious Magic, making your spells harder to counter (perhaps -2 and -4 for Improved Devious Magic, and double that if you use a spell slot one level higher). The Improved Counterspell feat would simply give you +2 on all counterspell checks and it could be taken multiple times; its effects would stack.
|
The important question is: why encourage counterspell? It's a neat idea, but honestly, in the best case scenario you are trading your action for the action of another opponent, assuming said opponent is casting spells of your level. This is a very boring way to play DND; it's like the higher-level, far less likely dazing. Keep things active :).
There was a little known item in the Magic Item Compendium called the Ring of Counterspelling (Or something of that nature).
It was around 10,000 GP and it could store a single spell of any level that you could use to counterspell as an immediate action. Throw a Dispel Magic in there and you're good to go. The problem is it doesn't help lower level characters. Maybe a lesser version of the item with a level limit? To prevent infringement, I suggest the name "Ring of Spell Disruption", the level limit, and possibly a limit to Dispel Magic spells only.
I've found three 'counterspell' items in the books so far:
The first one is the Ring of Counterspells. This is an SRD item. 4000 gp. It holds one spell, which can never be cast back out of the ring. If someone else casts the same spell on you, the ring automatically counters the spell. No action (or even awareness) needed on wearer's part.
The second and third are in the Magic Item Compendium. Ring of Spell-Battle (12000gp) and Ring of Greater Counterspells (16000gp) let you counter an opponent, as with a Dispel, as an immediate action. (They do other stuff too, but that's the relevant part.)
They're all useful items, to be sure, but does it take a magic item to make this a useful game mechanic?
The important question is: why encourage counterspell? It's a neat idea, but honestly, in the best case scenario you are trading your action for the action of another opponent, assuming said opponent is casting spells of your level. This is a very boring way to play DND; it's like the higher-level, far less likely dazing. Keep things active :).
Exactly the point. Counterspelling is an interesting idea, but the tradeoff of having to spend your round waiting for an opponent who may or may not cast something you want to counter is rarely worth it; just attacking the guy instead is almost always better. I'm looking for a way to make the concept of countering a spell tactically feasible.
The important question is: why encourage counterspell? It's a neat idea, but honestly, in the best case scenario you are trading your action for the action of another opponent, assuming said opponent is casting spells of your level. This is a very boring way to play DND; it's like the higher-level, far less likely dazing. Keep things active :).
A lot of fantasy literature is filled with wizard duels. In the literature, these are very tactical affairs with the wizards casting and countering until one get an advantage.
In D&D(and PF) and Wizard duel looks like this. The wizard nuke the crap out of each other until one of them runs out of health. That generally takes about 2 rounds.
The traditional wizard duel isn't possible under the current set of counterspelling rules.
There was a little known item in the Magic Item Compendium called the Ring of Counterspelling (Or something of that nature).
It was around 10,000 GP and it could store a single spell of any level that you could use to counterspell as an immediate action. Throw a Dispel Magic in there and you're good to go. The problem is it doesn't help lower level characters. Maybe a lesser version of the item with a level limit? To prevent infringement, I suggest the name "Ring of Spell Disruption", the level limit, and possibly a limit to Dispel Magic spells only.
Actually, if you put dispel magic in a ring of counterspells, then it will only go off if someone casts a dispel magic on you.
In the wishlist thread, someone mentioned that they would like to see counterspelling changed so that it is used more often. After reading that, I had some interesting ideas for house rules that would make counterspelling happen more often.
First increase dispelling options
Lesser Dispel Magic Level 1 Spell for any class that has dispel magic. Works just like dispel magic except, there is no AoE option, magic items and permenant magic effects cannot be effected, the maximum caster level bonus to dispel checks is 5, and the spell can only remove a single magic effect.
Second, any dispel magic spell can be cast to counterspell as an immediate action, but this imposes a -5 to the dispel check.
Further, a successful spellcraft to determine the spells being cast check gives a +2 on the level check when countering spells with dispel magic.
I like these three rules. I especially like the ability to counterspell as an immediate action. When the counterspell rules were originally written in 3rd edition, there were no immediate actions, just readied actions.
And there could be a feat that removes the -5 penalty.
I don't like the new spells, however. No need for them really.
I wouldn't remove the penalty entirely otherwise there is no reason to use a readied action to counterspell.
The problem I see with Counterspell I-IX is that it gives sorcerers an advantage over wizards, since they can spontaneously turn a slot into a counterspell, whereas the wizard has to reserve the slot in advance. In a duel between a wizard and a sorcerer, this is a decisive advantage, unless the wizard loads a significant portion of slots with Counterspell (taking a lot of fun out of being a wizard). The negative impact on the game is that the party will come to rely on the sorcerer for counterspelling in the same way that clerics were once stuck with the job of healing everybody.
Wouldn't these ideas work just as well without Counterspell I-IX if you just let the spells that already work as counterspells use the same rules you suggested for Counterspell I-IX? That way the wizard still gets some advantage from his versatility, and can hope to find a spell that the sorcerer cannot counter all day. To that end, I don't think it should be possible to counterspell with Dispel Magic as an immediate action. Maybe a feat could let you ready Dispel Magic with a move action instead of a standard action at the same -5 (or -8) penalty.
I really like the Ring of Counterspelling as long as it doesn't take Dispel Magic and instead provides multiple slots.
Not really. A sorcerer who takes counterspell or dispel magic on their list only get a single level. IE they take counterspell I as a level 1 spell on their known spell list. A wizard who know they are going up against a spellcaster can memorize a couple of counterspell I, a counterspell II, and so on.
Hmmm....
I use a spell point system and allow a sect of abjurers to cast dispels at reduced costs in exchange for that being the bonus spell each level (Well, a couple of other things as well.) and allowing it to be 'always known'. Our Abjurer got into your classic duel before Christmas and acquitted herself quite well. She neutralized a spell slinger 3 levels higher for 4 key rounds.
I suggest a visit to Hypertextd20.
Not really. A sorcerer who takes counterspell or dispel magic on their list only get a single level. IE they take counterspell I as a level 1 spell on their known spell list. A wizard who know they are going up against a spellcaster can memorize a couple of counterspell I, a counterspell II, and so on.The problem I see with Counterspell I-IX is that it gives sorcerers an advantage over wizards, since they can spontaneously turn a slot into a counterspell, whereas the wizard has to reserve the slot in advance. In a duel between a wizard and a sorcerer, this is a decisive advantage, unless the wizard loads a significant portion of slots with Counterspell (taking a lot of fun out of being a wizard). The negative impact on the game is that the party will come to rely on the sorcerer for counterspelling in the same way that clerics were once stuck with the job of healing everybody.
Wouldn't these ideas work just as well without Counterspell I-IX if you just let the spells that already work as counterspells use the same rules you suggested for Counterspell I-IX? That way the wizard still gets some advantage from his versatility, and can hope to find a spell that the sorcerer cannot counter all day. To that end, I don't think it should be possible to counterspell with Dispel Magic as an immediate action. Maybe a feat could let you ready Dispel Magic with a move action instead of a standard action at the same -5 (or -8) penalty.
I really like the Ring of Counterspelling as long as it doesn't take Dispel Magic and instead provides multiple slots.
That's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. It's not fun to waste multiple slots on Counterspell and lose versatility. A wizard doesn't always know when he will have to go up against a spellcaster, and even if he routinely dedicates a couple slots from several levels, the sorcerer will outlast him in a duel because he can spontaneously use as many slots as he needs to repeatedly counterspell. The sorcerer's ability to counterspell only needs to last a few rounds longer than the wizard's in order to land a few decisive spells for lots of damage.
Since you are trying to develop a system of counterspelling that can simulate spellcaster duels, I was hoping you'd look at the problem more carefully. I think Pathfinder leaves the counterspell rules unchanged because a fix is hard. I expect that other people will raise other troublesome issues for you if you welcome that kind of discussion.
You have some nice ideas that I haven't seen before. Best wishes for lots more ideas and feedback on this thread.
The important question is: why encourage counterspell? It's a neat idea, but honestly, in the best case scenario you are trading your action for the action of another opponent, assuming said opponent is casting spells of your level. This is a very boring way to play DND; it's like the higher-level, far less likely dazing. Keep things active :).
I thought the proposed change allowed you to counterspell as an immediate action without giving up your regular action. So you could cast a spell and counter your opponent's spell in the same round.
A lot of fantasy literature is filled with wizard duels. In the literature, these are very tactical affairs with the wizards casting and countering until one get an advantage.
In D&D(and PF) and Wizard duel looks like this. The wizard nuke the crap out of each other until one of them runs out of health. That generally takes about 2 rounds.
The traditional wizard duel isn't possible under the current set of counterspelling rules.
Exactly, WotC had to cook up a specific rule for their 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Settings (the Mageduel rule in Magic of Faerun), which basically allowed the Wizards who partecipated in the ritual Mageduel to have a single Counterspell per round every round as an immediate action (although the term 'immediate action' didn't exist at the time).
Because a high-magic campaign like that on Faerun could not allow poweful mages to duel pounding each other with spells like two drunken boxers with their guard down...
Of course, that was a patch, not a new rule (the Mageduel was a specific ritual to ALLOW casters to duel without smacking the cr*p out of each other), but it was a first step.
BTW, one of the authors of that book was Sean K Reynolds; dunno if the Mageduel rule was one of his creations, though...
Here, blow some holes in this :)
Counter Spell (Metamagic)
You can reduce the effectiveness of, or cancel entirely, spells cast by others.
Benefit: As an immediate action you may reduce the effective caster level of an opposing casters spell by your caster level. You do not need to know the level of the spell to be countered but you must have a spell prepared of the same (or higher) level than the spell being countered. If you do not have a spell prepared of sufficient level the counter attempt automatically fails.
If this would reduce the caster level to less than one the spell is countered, otherwise the spells effective caster level is reduced just as if the caster were lower level. If caster level is reduced such that it is not sufficient to cast the spell intended, the spell is still cast, but numeric effects of the spell are reduced as if the casters level were actually reduced.
So that's the basic wording, here are a couple examples of the thinking...
A 6th level caster wishes to counter a fireball spell being cast by a 9th level opponent. The 6th level caster reduces the effective caster level of the enemies spell to 3rd level, thereby reducing the spells damage potential from 9d6 to 3d6. The 6th level caster removes a 3rd level spell (of his choice) from his list of prepared spells. If they were equal level, the spell would be entirely countered as it would be reduced to a 0 caster level and therefore have no effect.
A 12th level caster wishes to counter a 4th level spell being cast by a 9th level caster. The 9th level caster's caster level is reduced to 0 (or less) so the spell is completely countered. The 12th level caster removes a 4th (or higher) level spell from his list of prepared spells.
Since this uses an immediate action the caster can still cast spells normally during his turn and then counter a spell (or reduce its effectiveness) when it is not his turn.
An argument could be made to implement some sort of check to see if a spell can be countered or not. I would imagine a comparative caster level check if so. Wizard Bob is 9th level vs. Wizard Dan who is 12th level. Wizard Bob rolls 1d20+9 while Wizard Dan rolls 1d20+12. Bob rolls a 14 and Dan rolls a 5. Bob's modified check then is 23 (9+14) vs. Dan's modified check of 17 (12+5). Bob wins and therefore counters as described above. Were he to fail you could even say that he still expends a spell of the normally required level (or not, if you wanted to be nicer).
Here, blow some holes in this :)
Counter Spell (Metamagic)
You can reduce the effectiveness of, or cancel entirely, spells cast by others.
Benefit: As an immediate action you may reduce the effective caster level of an opposing casters spell by your caster level. You do not need to know the level of the spell to be countered but you must have a spell prepared of the same (or higher) level than the spell being countered. If you do not have a spell prepared of sufficient level the counter attempt automatically fails.
If this would reduce the caster level to less than one the spell is countered, otherwise the spells effective caster level is reduced just as if the caster were lower level. If caster level is reduced such that it is not sufficient to cast the spell intended, the spell is still cast, but numeric effects of the spell are reduced as if the casters level were actually reduced.
So that's the basic wording, here are a couple examples of the thinking...
A 6th level caster wishes to counter a fireball spell being cast by a 9th level opponent. The 6th level caster reduces the effective caster level of the enemies spell to 3rd level, thereby reducing the spells damage potential from 9d6 to 3d6. The 6th level caster removes a 3rd level spell (of his choice) from his list of prepared spells. If they were equal level, the spell would be entirely countered as it would be reduced to a 0 caster level and therefore have no effect.
A 12th level caster wishes to counter a 4th level spell being cast by a 9th level caster. The 9th level caster's caster level is reduced to 0 (or less) so the spell is completely countered. The 12th level caster removes a 4th (or higher) level spell from his list of prepared spells.
Since this uses an immediate action the caster can still cast spells normally during his turn and then counter a spell (or reduce its effectiveness) when it is not his turn.
An argument could be made to implement some sort of check to see if a spell can be countered or...
My only real problem with this method is that it is too reliable.
Example: A level 12 wizard is up against a balanced party of level 9(fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric). The level 12 can pretty much shut down the level 9 wizard. Further, the cleric + wizard together can shutdown the wizard.
The problem is that is the side that gets to buff before hand wins. If the level 12 wizard has fly and greater invis at the start of the fight, the players are basically screwed. The players can't get off a see invisibility or a dispel magic to force the wizard into range.
Some thoughts on changes.
To counterspell as an immediate action you must use the same spell that is being cast. This allows for the improved counterspell feat which lets you use any spell in the same school when counterspelling.
|
|
My own thoughts on counterspelling, with the Alternate Class Featyre and the latter feats limited to Abjuration specialists.
Alternate Class Feature / Class Exchange for Wizards specialized in Abjuration
Abjurant Counterspell
You can counterspell another spell with any prepared arcane Abjuration spell of equal or higher level, regardless of the school of spell being countered. You still need to make a Spellcraft check to identify the spell you wish to counter. To develop this feature, you must use your 1st level Feat choice to learn the Improved Counterspell feat, and you do not gain the Arcane Bond class feature, or the Scribe Scroll bonus feat (you can purchase the Scribe Scroll feat normally, although a non-Human will have to wait until 3rd level before being able to do so).
Feats;
Absorptive Counterspell
Prerequisites: Improved Counterspell
Benefits: When you successfully counter another spell, you have a 50% chance of drawing in sufficient energies to replenish the spell (or slot) you used to counter the spell. This percentage cannot be enhanced by any means. If you are using a higher level spell to counter a lower-level spell, the chance of replenishment is reduced by 10% per level of difference.
Example: If you use dispel magic to counterspell a casting of glitterdust, you only have a 40% chance of retaining your dispel magic spell (or the slot expended to cast it) if successful.
Reflective Counterspell
Prerequisites: Improved Counterspell, Absorptive Counterspell, must be a Wizard specialized in Abjuration
Benefits: If you successfully counter a spell, you can choose *not* to absorb the energies to replenish your own expended spell slot, and to instead attempt to turn the spell back as if you had cast it yourself. If the spell has a single target, it must be the caster, but you can turn an area spell back as you see fit, so long as the caster is within the area affected. There is a 50% chance of this being successful, with a bonus of 10% for every level by which the spell you used to counter the incoming spell overpowered it.
Example: An Abjurer uses dispel magic to counter an enemy Sorcerers scorching ray. He has a 60% chance of reflecting the spell (the entire spell, he cannot divide up the rays among separate targets) back upon the Sorcerer. If he instead counterspelled a fireball, he would be able to place it as he wished, so long as the Sorcerer were within it's area of effect.
Countermagic
Prerequisites: Improved Counterspell, must be a Wizard specialized in Abjuration
Benefits: You can counterspell a spell-like ability. The Spellcraft DC to identify a spell-like ability that duplicates a pre-existing spell is +5. For a spell-like ability that does not have a spell equivalent, such as a White Dragons Freezing Fog ability, the difficulty to identify it is +10, and you cannot counter it unless you have an ability such as Abjurant Counterspell or a spell such as dispel magic or greater dispel magic (of the appropriate level) prepared that specifically can be used to counter any spell.
My only real problem with this method is that it is too reliable.
Example: A level 12 wizard is up against a balanced party of level 9(fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric). The level 12 can pretty much shut down the level 9 wizard. Further, the cleric + wizard together can shutdown the wizard.
The problem is that is the side that gets to buff before hand wins. If the level 12 wizard has fly and greater invis at the start of the fight, the players are basically screwed. The players can't get off a see invisibility or a dispel magic to force the wizard into range.
Some thoughts on changes.
To counterspell as an immediate action you must use the same spell that is being cast. This allows for the improved counterspell feat which lets you use any spell in the same school when counterspelling.
I agree that it is probably too easy to lock down a caster using this wording. I thought about that and wondered what others would think too. I like your idea of having it require the same spell for the basic counterspell feat or any spell of the same school for the improved counterspell feat. Therefore it requires two feats and even then isn't 100% as you have to have a spell of sufficient level prepared/available and it has to be of the same school.
I wonder then about saying that in order to counter as an immediate action it must be the same spell. Otherwise you can ready an action and have it act as if it were the improved counterspell feat, ie, can be any spell of sufficient level of the same school.
So something like this for generic counter spell mechanics...
Counter Spell (Standard Action)
Any spell caster can ready an action to attempt to counter a spell. He can only counter a spell he has correctly identified. If he successfully identifies the spell being cast, and he has a spell of the same school (and the same or higher level as the spell being countered) available/prepared then he can attempt to counter the spell.
To counter the spell you make a comparative caster level check with the opposing caster. If you succeed, the spells effective level is reduced by your caster level. If the caster level would be reduced below one then the spell is fully countered and has no effect, otherwise the spells effective caster level is reduced as if the caster were lower level, meaning all numeric effects of the spell that depend on caster level are changed to the lower caster level (including save DC, number of dice for damage etc).
When you counter a spell, whether you succeed or fail, you remove the prepared spell as if you had cast it."
So any spell caster can use the above for countering normally (as a readied action).
In addition, a spellcaster can opt to be more effective at countering spells by taking the counter spell and improved counter spell metamagic feats (reworded below)...
Counter Spell (Metamagic Feat)
You can reduce the effectiveness of, or cancel entirely, spells cast by others.
Benefit: You can, as an immediate action, attempt to counter a spell. You can only counter a spell you have correctly identified and which you also have prepared. If you successfully identify the spell being cast, and you have that same spell prepared then you can attempt to counter the spell. See the counter spell standard action for determining success or failure.
Improved Counter Spell (Metamagic Feat)
Your ability to reduce the effectiveness of, or cancel entirely, spells cast by others is greatly improved.
Benefit: You can, as an immediate action, attempt to counter a spell. If you successfully identify the spell being cast, and you have a spell of the same school and the same (or higher) level prepared then you can attempt to counter the spell. See the counter spell standard action for determining success or failure.
My only real problem with this method is that it is too reliable.
Example: A level 12 wizard is up against a balanced party of level 9(fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric). The level 12 can pretty much shut down the level 9 wizard. Further, the cleric + wizard together can shutdown the wizard.
The problem is that is the side that gets to buff before hand wins. If the level 12 wizard has fly and greater invis at the start of the fight, the players are basically screwed. The players can't get off a see invisibility or a dispel magic to force the wizard into range.
Some thoughts on changes.
To counterspell as an immediate action you must use the same spell that is being cast. This allows for the improved counterspell feat which lets you use any spell in the same school when counterspelling.I agree that it is probably too easy to lock down a caster using this wording. I thought about that and wondered what others would think too. I like your idea of having it require the same spell for the basic counterspell feat or any spell of the same school for the improved counterspell feat. Therefore it requires two feats and even then isn't 100% as you have to have a spell of sufficient level prepared/available and it has to be of the same school.
I wonder then about saying that in order to counter as an immediate action it must be the same spell. Otherwise you can ready an action and have it act as if it were the improved counterspell feat, ie, can be any spell of sufficient level of the same school.
So something like this for generic counter spell mechanics...
Counter Spell (Standard Action)
Any spell caster can ready an action to attempt to counter a spell. He can only counter a spell he has correctly identified. If he successfully identifies the spell being cast, and he has a spell of the same school (and the same or higher level as the spell being countered) available/prepared then he can attempt to counter the spell.To counter the spell you make a comparative...
I like things a little more random.
If you counter as an immediate action roll a d20 - 10 and add that to your caster level on the counterspell.
If you counter as a readied action, roll d20 - 5.
Essentially if you counter as a readied action you get +5 to you effective caster level.
I think a nice way of increasing the amount of counter-spelling in games, would be to make a bit more use of the skills we already have. Certainly a lot simpler than adding new feats, etc. For example, encouraging magic users to make sense motive skill checks to get an idea of what spell their foe is likely to cast. DMs should throw players a bone here - if the PC wants to counter, don't be a jerk (as I have seen happen) and decide to cast a different spell just to foil the player. Also, if an enemy magic user has a readied spell, then spellcraft skill checks can be used to identify it.
Also, I think that if DMs used counter-spelling more often then their players would too. DMs have a better chance of guessing what a player will cast, than a player does of an NPC. So DMs, write it down and then reveal the counter to your players when they go for their "usual" spells. This is a wonderful way to keep players on their toes, too.
Peace,
tfad
We use a caster level + d20 check for counterspelling. Most of the time things work out well. I got lazy here and palmed this off on a few of my players and they are revising them during the next 2 weeks.
Disclaimer - Our group plays a fairly heavily modified version of Pathfinder, so what I have to offer on this subject may not be all that easily portable into anyone else's game. That said I feel the following changes to the Counterspell mechanic greatly increase the viability of Player Characters and Non-player Characters desiring to engage opponents in the kind of iconic Wizard's Duel that Charender described (above).
Counterspell [Metamagic]
Prerequisites: {arcane magic-user} & {training in Knowledge (Arcana)}
The arcane magic-user can immediately expend the energy inherent to any spell of equal or greater power in an attempt to disrupt another magic-user’s arcana before it manifests. Using one’s spell to Counterspell requires the expenditure of its daily slot, but doesn’t use any of the spell components that the cannibalized spell would have required to manifest, if cast. Counter-spelling has a range of 100 feet + 10 feet per level. The resulting disruptive energy imperceptibly and instantaneously flows unerringly from the counterspeller to his/her target. To adjudicate the dueling energies, the clashing characters each roll a d20 and add his/her level + the spell power he/she has employed + his/her spell-generating basic ability bonus (CHA or INT, as applicable); the character with the higher sum wins the effect. Note: Because this feat is fueled by raw arcane energy instead of any specific spell, the target’s spell immunity, Spell Resistance, and saving throws (if otherwise available) can’t afford any chance to belay the disruption in the case that the counterspeller wins the duel. Special: Unlike the Spell Resistance special quality, which stops arcana from having its effect on a target – or a saving throw, which may negate or partially mitigate the effects of undesired magic – or Break Enchantment or Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic or Mage’s Disjunction, which ends the affect of an on-going manifestation, successful employment of this feat actually inhibits the arcane effect from manifesting in the first place. (House)
Greater Counterspell [Metamagic]
Prerequisites: {spell-caster} & {10+ ranks Knowledge (Arcana)} & {the Counterspell feat}
The caster gets a +3 competency bonus when attempting to Counterspell. Note: This feat doesn’t benefit the deployment of Break Enchantment or Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic or Mage’s Disjunction. (House)
Harden Spell-casting [Metamagic]
Prerequisite: {spell-caster} & {10+ ranks Knowledge (Arcana)}
The caster can enjoy a +3 competency bonus to resist his/her spells being Counterspelled. While a prospective counterspeller’s dueling effort is calculated by summing a d20 + his/her level + the spell power he/she has employed + his/her spell-generating basic ability bonus, applying this feat allows it’s user’s effort to be calculated by summing a d20 +3 + his/her level + the spell power he/she has cast + his/her spell-generating basic ability bonus. Special: Hardening requires using a spell slot two higher than the spell’s normal power. (House)
Improved Counterspell [Metamagic]
Prerequisites: {spell-caster} & {10+ ranks Knowledge (Arcana)} & {the Counterspell feat}
The caster can expend the arcane energy of a spell of lesser power than the arcana he/she is attempting to Counterspell. Note: Using a lower-powered spell slot affects the adjudication calculation for the counterspeller negatively. Normally: Counter-spelling requires expending a spell slot of equal or greater power be used to disrupt another magic-user’s arcana before it manifests. (House)
Usurp Spells [Epic]
Prerequisites: {18th+ level} & {epic training in Knowledge (Arcana)} & {the Improved Counterspell feat}
Upon successfully Counterspelling an arcane effect, a prospective usurper can chose to steal control of the spell rather than stop its generation. The counterspeller who usurps a spell makes all of the decisions regarding the spell’s manifestation as if he/she had cast it. Notes: Level-based spell variables (i.e. area, range, dice effect, etc.) remain based on the original manifester of the spell. Also, usurped spells still originate (physically and in terms of resources) from their original manifester. (House)
Salient House rules:
1. Knowledge (Arcana) is the skill that recognizes an arcane magical effect (aka spell) that is in the process of being cast (or is currently manifested, or was the cause of particular consequence).
2. Each character is allowed to attempt one knowledge check per his/her/its player's turn as a free action.
3. Epic characters are those who have reached 18th level.
Definitions. As used in these House feats -
1. "Arcane magic-user" means any class (or kit) that can cast spells (which is contrasted to certain classes' [and kits'] deific favor to call prayers). Examples - Arcane Archers, Arcane Militants, Arcane Tricksters, (non-Druidic) Bards, Skalds, Sorcerers, Witchdoctors, Wizards, etc.
2. "Level" as related to characters equates to Pathfinder's term "caster level".
3. "Power" as related to spells (or prayers) equates to Pathfinder's term "spell level".
4. "Spell-caster" refers only those classes with the potential of eventually gaining enough experience so as to cast 9th-powered spells (provided an individual has sufficient basic ability to manifest these powers). Examples - Sorcerers and Wizards
Having made your way thru this grey-wall of text (I'm a new poster to these boards and can't seem to figure out how to make the "Show" button work), please feel welcome to share your insights as to this varient rule system for Counterspelling.
I'm working on this as well for my homebrew, which is 3.5 SRD, not Pathfinder, but all I've done so far is add the difference between spell levels and character levels to the dispel check. I was thinking about swapping out one or more to add relevant modifiers to the check, but I decided against that because of buffing issues(I think. It's been a while since I've worked on this aspect of my house rules).
Here's a new spell that can use the existing counterspelling rules and works well with them:
Izzy's Infused Inversion
Sor/Wiz 4, Cle 4, Dru 4 (Could be level 3)
School: Abjuration
V, S, M
Range: Personal, Medium (100+ 10ft/level)
Duration: 1 round/level or until expended
Casting Time: Standard Action
Effect: This spell creates a field around the caster resembling the spell Dispel Magic. At any time during the spell's duration that a spell is cast within the spell's range, the caster may, as an immediate action, attempt to dispel the spell as though using dispel magic for that purpose (Caster level (max 10) +1d20 vs 11+ Caster's Caster level). Regardless of this attempt's success, the spell ends when this effect is used.
Arcane Material Component: A pair of magnets
Greater version has max 20 for caster level and is level 7(6).
I like the Counterspells of the OP a lot. As for Sorcerers getting more mileage out of them than wizards, simply letting wizards sub a spell for a counterspell of a lower level might be appropriate. If you're fond of wizard's duels, it might even follow logic that if Clerics can spontaneously sacrifice for cure spells, and Druids can spont Nature's Ally, wizards should be able to sacrifice for Counterspells.
Arcane Duelist:
Prereq: Spellcraft 3 ranks.
This feat represents training in wizard's duels. The wizard may substitute any spell for a Counterspell(I-IX) of one level lower than the spell sacrificed.
Accomplished Arcane Duelist:
Prereq: Spellcraft 6 ranks, Arcane Duelist.
The mage is exceptional in their ability to counter spells. They only suffer a -2 penalty on Counterspell checks when countering as an immediate action.
Countering as an immediate action deals with the "one action for an opponent's action" problem, and keeping the damage potential in the counterspell partially solves the "its boring" problem.
I ran a campaign that used some Wild magic rules from Wild Spellcraft... counterspelling definitely wouldn't have been boring then, and I think the mages would have made heavy use of it had it been available (a party of mostly casters).