Counter-spelling, as written is both too hard and too easy. You sacrifice an action just in case someone casts a spell. An extreme sub-par option for a spell-caster. The specific spell requirement makes it very difficult to actually succeed, and you've lost a standard action if you cannot counter. And then you just cancel out the spells, no caster checks required. So I'm working on a system that tries to level the field, making counter-spell into a combat maneuver.
First we have the Magic Maneuver Bonus and Defense.
MMB = caster level + primary spell-casting bonus
MMD = caster level + primary spell-casting bonus + 1 per 3 ranks in Spellcraft + 10
When casting, if you have Spell Focus/Greater, these bonuses apply to your MMD when casting a spell from that school.
When dispelling, if you sacrifice a spell from the appropriate school you receive +2 to MMB. If you sacrifice the same spell or an appropriate counter, such as slow/haste or dispel magic, you gain a +5.
Countering works this way:
1 - An enemy attempts a spell. You make a Spellcraft check of DC 15 + 2x lvl of spell to determine what it is.
2 - If you succeed, you may sacrifice your next turn's standard action in order to attempt to counter. You may not attempt a counter-spell if you are presently unable to take a standard action, such as while cowering or dazed, are concentrating on maintaining a spell, or are affected by one of the following conditions: (to be listed later)
3 - Sacrifice a spell of equal or higher level and make a MMB check versus your opponent's Defense, applying any bonuses or penalties. If you equal or exceed their MMD, the spell is countered.
Countering provokes an attack of opportunity, and automatically causes the attempt to fail, costing you your standard action but no spells.
Now, it's a little wordy right now, I have to actually come up with which conditions prevent you from countering and which apply penalties. There are also going to be feats associated with it.
So, PEACH
Number breakdown, factoring in equal stat bonuses and full Spellcraft ranks. MMB has three numbers for base/same school/proper counter, MMD has three numbers for base/SF/GSF.
Level MMB MMD
1 +1/+3/+6 11/12/13
3 +3/+5/+8 14/15/16
6 +6/+8/+11 18/19/20
9 +9/+11/+14 22/23/24
12 +12/+14/+17 26/27/28
15 +15/+17/+20 30/31/32
20 +20/+22/+25 36/37/38
The numbers are relatively close, but I have to tack on which conditions prevent you from countering. There is also the cost of a standard action, the sacrificed spell, and AoO. For feats, I'm c designing both offensive and defensive, like getting rid of the AoO and allowing casters to retain a spell that was successfully countered. And remember it is based on caster level, so non-full progression, like ranger, and multiclass characters are at a penalty. Got to figure out something for that, such as a feat to add all the effective caster levels together for MMB/MMD.
My only issue is with the terminology "Combat Maneuver".
In my mind, a combat maneuver has a very rigid definition*: an attack-like action where size is a benefit rather than a hindrance. The APG seems to loosen this idea a bit (to my consternation) but it still fits the general framework of that definition.
The idea you've posted seems like a very good one, but I would be more inclined to use it if you dispensed with the Maneuver terminology. I can see that you're using maneuvers as a model for the rule, which is laudable, but it contributes the the confusion around what makes a good maneuver and possibly obscures the intention of your rule.
* Please bear in mind this is not an official definition, but an extrapolation from the ratings common to all combat maneuvers.
There's already a static number associated with each spell that takes into account Spell Focus and the caster's ability mod -- the spell's save DC.
I think it would make sense to use the save DC as the number to beat on a counterspell check, rather than using caster level, because it makes higher-level spells harder to counter, and because it doesn't require calculating a new number (in most cases the spell DC will already be known or be reflexive to calculate).
My only issue is with the terminology "Combat Maneuver".
In my mind, a combat maneuver has a very rigid definition*: an attack-like action where size is a benefit rather than a hindrance. The APG seems to loosen this idea a bit (to my consternation) but it still fits the general framework of that definition.
The idea you've posted seems like a very good one, but I would be more inclined to use it if you dispensed with the Maneuver terminology. I can see that you're using maneuvers as a model for the rule, which is laudable, but it contributes the the confusion around what makes a good maneuver and possibly obscures the intention of your rule.
* Please bear in mind this is not an official definition, but an extrapolation from the ratings common to all combat maneuvers.
You aren't the only one who doesn't like the wording. How about Magic Exploit Bonus, or Magic Artifice Defense
There's already a static number associated with each spell that takes into account Spell Focus and the caster's ability mod -- the spell's save DC.
I think it would make sense to use the save DC as the number to beat on a counterspell check, rather than using caster level, because it makes higher-level spells harder to counter, and because it doesn't require calculating a new number (in most cases the spell DC will already be known or be reflexive to calculate).
Th DCs are going to be much lower at higher levels. And I factor in the idea of higher level spells being more difficult with the cost of sacking a spell of equal or higher. I could raise the DCs based on spell level, but then it is arguable that higher level spells would also give a bonus. When I get my feat list together I will show how I take this into effect.
For me, the idea is a higher level caster is more difficult to counter because of his experience. That is what makes it more difficult. The spell he casts requires an equivalent or higher potential of magical energy (spell) in order to dispel. Countering ends up as a sort of battle of wills as opposed to spell vs. spell.
This is also why I have Spellcraft give bonuses to defense. A higher understanding of the nature of spells makes you more determined in your casting force. Countering, on the other hand, requires you to force spell power into a disrupting effect, an antithesis of it's nature.
You aren't the only one who doesn't like the wording. How about Magic Exploit Bonus, or Magic Artifice Defense
Hmm. Well, I was never a big fan of the rating names CMB and CMD. I love what Jason did with Maneuvers and how receptive he was to the playtest material, but the word "combat" feels redundant in the rating name and "CMB" shares too many phonemes with "CMB" — that leads to problems explaining the rule to newbies, and even experienced players mishear it at my table frequently. Of course, this kind of usability is directly under my field of study, so I judge more harshly than I should.
I digress; choose something simple and self-explanatory. If you were going to use a three-letter acronym, try a three-syllable word or word combination instead. That way, even people who don't know your rule have a good shot of understanding what you're talking about.
What your OP refers to as MMB is actually just a Concentration check. Call it that. It has a home on the statblock already, and a breakdown in the rulebook. I totally understand the urge to call it something else because it is being rolled offensively, but if you you just leave it as Concentration, it will play nicely with other rules.
If you're still going to call it something other than Concentration, call it call it Counter Spell, or Counter Spell bonus (CSB).
I haven't thought about this rule or the terminology long enough to make worthwhile suggestions. I'm gonna think it over for a while.
Thought I mentioned it, but yeah, it is a concentration check. I am just turning it into something else, where an actual Concentration check is only one use in four. This system will contain Concentration checks, counter-spelling, spell resistance (I'll show how that works later), and a parry/deflect system.
The issue is, I don't feel right calling it Con. Attack & Defense. Magical Attack Bonus is also a little to repetitive.
Just wanted to chime in with support for your overall idea; counterspelling has long been a section of the book that gathers metaphorical dust. Outside of when I purposely have a enemy use it, to try and remind players that it is an option, it never seems to get used.
I'm liking the tactical choice of giving up your next standard action. A question though: does that make counterspelling an immediate action with a special clause, or its own type of action? Personally, I'd go with immediate, if only for rule consistency and simplicity.
I've always been a fan of caster level rather than spell level as a benchmark of power. It always bothered me that a level 1 wizard's charm person was as difficult to resist as a level 5 wizards, assuming they had the same stats. Shouldn't experience and relative spellcasting power increase that? It always made me feel like regardless of caster level, the spell itself determined the limits of power. Which makes sense in some cases, but falls apart in others. I know its a boost to spellcasters, but I've always houseruled spell DCs to be set off the highest spell level you can cast, makes it simple and easy for new players to remember their spell DC.
That being said, there are already established mechanics that use DC in the calculation, rather than caster level. Then again, there are caster level mechanics as well, like Spell Penetration. I'm honestly not sure which is the better version to use for counterspelling.
One final note: The current complexity you are implying your system will have is rather daunting, at least from a "could I put this on my table and get my players to use it without whining about too much to learn" standpoint. Perhaps creating a basic, simple system, then attaching an "expansion" ruleset, would be a worthwhile endeavor? Sort of a Core Rules version, and then an APG expansion? Personally, I could see a lot of things, like circumstance bonuses for sacrificing higher level slots, slots of the same type of spell (fire, cold, etc), slots of opposing spells (haste vrs slow), etc etc. Even a small mishap/event table for when a counterspell attempt fails or succeeds by a wide margin (turning spell back, absorbing spell energy, detonation, etc).
Anyhow, keep up the thought, I will be watching this thread for developments!
An intressting modification of this would be that the "counterspeller" get a bonus = [spell level used for counter] - [cast spell level] on his counter check, this would open another tactical choice. (I HAVE TO counter this spell, so I use a higher spell to get a bonus).
Otherwise nice idea, I have alwys my problems with counterspells, because of the "withhold" action they needed.
Okay, to keep things simple and because I still cannot come up with anything catchy, I'll just be using Concentration checks and Spell Defense.
@Freesword:
I like how the attack roll is, but your way would work as well. When I do my number crunching I'll definitely try out this. So let's set it up like this:
Counter-spell attack bonus = caster level + primary spell-casting bonus + (spell level used for counter - cast spell level)
Spell defense = caster level + primary spell-casting bonus + 1/2 base Will save bonus (rounded down) + 10
Added in the Will bonus to make higher level casters progressively harder to counter, though sacking a 8th level spell to counter a 4th can be used to bridge the gap.
As for the AoO, how about:
When you attempt to counter a spell, you provoke an AoO. If the attack succeeds and you take damage, the counter-spell attempt automatically fails. You still lose your next standard action, but you do not expend any spells.
Now for feats:
Improved Counter-spell
Benefit: You no longer provoke an AoO when counter-spelling. You also gain a +2 bonus to your Concentration check when you sacrifice a spell of the same school as the one you are countering.
Greater Counter-spell
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 6 ranks, Improved Counter-spell
Benefit: The bonus provided by Improved Counter-spell increases by +2. In addition, whenever you successfully counter a spell, it's caster provokes an attack of opportunity.
Spell Backlash
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 12 ranks, Improved Counter-spell
Benefit: Whenever you successfully counter a spell, it's caster takes twice the spell's level in damage.
Special: This feat cannot be combined with the Parry Spell feat.
Parry Spell
Same as what is in the APG with the following added:
Special: This feat cannot be combined with the Spell Backlash feat.
Defensive Magical Measures
Benefit: When determining your spell defense, use your total number of Hit Die instead of caster level.
So our level breakdowns, assuming equivalent scores and picking up the appropriate feats. Concentration bonuses are general spell/school spell, expending a spell of the same level. Spell defense uses best Will progression.
Level Con. Def.
1 +1/+3 12
3 +3/+5 14
6 +6/+10 18
12 +12/+16 26
16 +16/+20 30
20 +20/+24 36
I like this best so far because the gap increases pretty slowly. It parallels the way CMD increases over CMB as you level up. Higher levels are going to be more difficult, but using higher level spells to counter lower closes that gap again.
SR seems like it will work out too. At a glance, an ancient silver dragon has SR 30. In my system, it has caster level 15, a +7 stat, and a base Will of 16, giving it SR 30. Not too shabby.
Yes i like the idea behind this,as its been said before counter-spell is never used
As for the AoO, how about:When you attempt to counter a spell, you provoke an AoO. If the attack succeeds and you take damage, the counter-spell attempt automatically fails. You still lose your next standard action, but you do not expend any spells.
How about you subtract the damage from your concentration check? It would make it a little more interesting. A level 20 wizard failing a counterspell because they took 1 damage seems a little off IMO.
How about you subtract the damage from your concentration check? It would make it a little more interesting. A level 20 wizard failing a counterspell because they took 1 damage seems a little off IMO.
That also would work, though the dispel-er loses the spell this way, and my way they never get the chance to even sacrifice it.
One major stipulation I forgot to add:
For multiclassed characters, choose one class. This class determines your caster level and primary spell-casting bonus. You may change this choice every time you level up. If you do not have any levels in a spell casting class, your caster level and primary spell-casting bonus are both 0.
And other feats:
Determined Spell-casting
Benefit: Gain a +2 bonus to spell defense. If you have 10 or more ranks in Spellcraft,this bonus increases to +4.
Innate Spell Resistance
Prerequisites: 12 hit dice
Benefit: You gain spell resistance equal to your spell defense.
Congruent Counter-spelling
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 9 ranks (maybe 12)
Benefit: You may sacrifice multiple spells, adding their effective levels together, instead of sacrificing a single spell while counter-spelling. All spells must be granted from the same class, and effective level of the spell may be no higher then class's caster level.
Special: You do not gain the benefits granted by Improved or Greater Counter-spell from sacrificing a spell from an appropriate school.
Congruent Counter-spelling allows a level 20 wizard to sack a bunch of lvl 1's, 2's, and 3's to pump as high as a 'level 20' spell, but it keeps a multiclass PC from doing the same as effectively. Kind of empty all the batteries, but but as long as they are flowing the same way.
Natural Counter Magics
Prerequisites: Improved Counter-spell
Benefit: You may counter spell-like abilities as if countering a spell.
Hardened Spell-casting
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 6 ranks, Determined Spell-casting
Benefit: When an enemy attempts and fails to counter a spell you cast, if they are targeted by the spell or in it's area of effect, they take a -2 penalty to all saves against the spell.
Innate Spell Resistance
Prerequisites: 12 hit dice
Benefit: You gain spell resistance equal to your spell defense.
This is way too powerful.
For comparison, Spell Resistance is a 5th level spell, only lasts 1 min/level and gives 12+caster level. A monk only gets 10+level. A Holy Avenger only gives 5+level.
I would suggest somewhere between 5 and 10 + caster level. If you're leaning towards 10+, I would recommend some more prerequisites. Like any of the Improved (Iron Will, Great Fortitude or Lightning Reflexes). Not all of them, but their choice.
You can also add that if you use the same spell to counter (or with a spell specifically designated as countering the target spell, like haste/slow), you gain +2 to your Concentration check. This doesn't stack with the bonus granted by Improved Counterspell.
I'll playtest your system this weekend and post some feedback...
Some more questions. About range: in the original you should use the same spell, so your target must be in that spell range. But by your system, you can use any spell to counter. So, I should be in the original spell's range to be able to counter it? Looks fine...
And how about metamagicked spells? No change in the check?
@Irontruth - SR is going to be a later add-on for this. When I copied it, I didn't realize I copied that feat.
@freduncio
1 - I would allow that to stack w/Imp Counter. I just keep forgetting to write everything out, I've got so many bases to cover.
2 - The range of the counter-spell wouldn't matter. You are not actually using the spell but it's potential of power to disrupt.
3 - Metamagic - no change, but I am placing a few feats on this subject into the system. If anything, Heightened would be the only metamagic feat that matters.
Hey
Just wondering if this is still being worked on?
Likewise. I never noticed this thread and I like this concept. I would like to see this fully defined and published for reference at the table. Being poor makes it hard to have the resources to make my own Houserule Bible like I hear so many others have.
Resurrecting this thread, because I was talking with WarColonel recently about using this in my game, and want to see what people who have used the system think about it.
|
(seeing this for first time)
I agree with sentiments expressed that this is best worked out with pre-existing statistics. namely, Concentration and Spell Save DC.
i propose:
Counterspell:
A red crackling field circles around the caster, creating a magical one-way vortex of eldritch energy...
As a full-round action, a caster may declare that they are initiating a counterspell action. If no enemy casters cast a spell before the end of the round, nothing happens. If an enemy caster does cast a spell, the spell must first be Identified before it can be Countered; if this roll fails, there is potential Backlash.
Identify:
Using Spellcraft skill as normal; DC 15 + spell level, a free action.
Counter:
Upon an Identified spell, the counterspelling mage must expend a spell of their own to attempt to counter the enemy spell. If the counterspelling mage expends the exact same spell, or a spell's natural counter (haste/slow), the counter is an automatic success. Otherwise, she must roll a Concentration check and beat the spell's Save DC by 5 or greater in order to successfully counter the spell. She gains a bonus to this roll equal to the level of the spell she expends to enact the counter, with an additional +2 if the expended spell is from the same school.
(A caster may identify any number of spells but only counter one per round. A spell may only be subjected to a single counter attempt per casting. If multiple casters 'gang up' to counter, each must expend a spell of the same level, and each adds only a +1 aid bonus to the principle couterspeller's concentration check; and all are bound to any potential backlash.)
Backlash:
If the counterspelling mage attempts and fails the Concentration check against the Spell DC, she receives no saving throw against any effects the spell might have had upon her. A roll of 1 on the Concentration check always causes backlash.
...
some ideas for Improved Counterspell follow:
1) standard action instead of full-round
2) +1 bonus
3) one additional counter per round
4) immediate counter
Uh, the biggest problem with counterspelling by the existing, normal rules, is that you have to trade your standard action to potentially do NOTHING. Changing that to a full-round action, and with a tell, is going in the complete opposite direction of the idea presented here.