| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In our game tonight the Mystic Theurge revealed that he had Fireball cast into his ring of counterspells and claimed that this would stop an enemy Sorcerer's Fireball if he was in the area. Several of us felt that the counter wouldn't work since the spell wasn't cast on the PC wearing the ring (just in his area).
We'd like to verify for future reference whether the ring only works against spells targeted on the wearer (which is what it seems to say)
Here's how I see it [the stuff in the brackets is mine, the rest is from the CRB]:
How Counterspells Work
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell[the Ring of Counterspells does this for you automatically]. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself[this is how the ring works so it's explicit in the ring's description]. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared[implicit from the Ring], you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range[the Fireball's target is a space; that space is in range (Long) or you wouldn't have been affected anyway], both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
So the only question remaining is whether the spell cast must be cast with the Ring's wearer as the specific indicated target, or is it enough to just include him in an area effect? The Ring of Counterspells says "should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer". Upon. That doesn't specifically require the wearer to be the one single specified target of a spell. It just says "upon".
"Upon" is not a game term and in the English language, "upon" can mean many things: "our enemies are upon us" can still be true even if the enemies are still miles away. "Our doom is upon us" can be true for many reasons, some people are even claiming that right now that the end of the word is "upon" us, meaning, sometime in our lifetime the world will end.
"Upon" is a fairly vague word and not detailed as a game mechanic. I think the authors knew this. In other cases, they are very specific to say things like "If a spell is cast with you as the target" which does use specific game mechanics. That kind of phrasing is lacking here so we can define "upon" however we want.
Certainly, if you're in the area of a Fireball's effect, that Fireball is "upon" you.
So, the Ring has Fireball stored in it. Someone casts a Fireball and the Ring is in the area of effect. It detects the incoming Fireball and automatically "casts" its own Fireball as a "Counterspell effect" and both Fireballs are negated automatically.
I'd rule it countered.
Compare and contrast to "Spell turning" which explicitly states that you must be targeted, only if you are the target, AOE is not affected etc etc etc.
Ring of counterspells is .... while awesome, VERY situationally awesome, not just generic 'always on' awesome. Limiting it further so it would never effect a spell that has AoE ("Oh... he was targeting the 5 foot square you are in for the fireball, not you")... I don't think is the intent.
|
I've had more than a few characters running around with two rings of counterspelling, generally wizards with feeblemind and disintegrate as the two spells.
And yeah, the "cast upon" is the key thing - it's rather vague, and I'm surprised they didn't change that rather vague wording from 3.5, IIRC, it's exactly the same.
"If you are the target", the description of ring of counterspells says. Fireball is not a targeted spell, it is an area spell. It would work with for example Slay Living, which is a targeted spell.
"If you are the target", the description of ring of counterspells says. Fireball is not a targeted spell, it is an area spell. It would work with for example Slay Living, which is a targeted spell.
That is not what it says.
This ring might seem to be a ring of spell storing upon first examination. However, while it allows a single spell of 1st through 6th level to be cast into it, that spell cannot be cast out of the ring again. Instead, should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action, requiring no action (or even knowledge) on the wearer's part. Once so used, the spell cast within the ring is gone. A new spell (or the same one as before) may be placed into it again.
Target is not used in the description at all. It should therefore work on any spells which effect you that you have already cast into it.
To be fair, under the magic targeting rules:
"Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell."
and
"Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below."
So following those descriptions, I would say ring of counterspells only functions on spells which require a target/targets and not on area spells.
Before the game, ask your GM. If it won't work, put a different spell in the ring. If it will then happy day for you. Unclear rules are subject to GM discretion.
If you are going by the wording then "cast upon" would include area of effect spells in which the wearer of the ring is included. Spell Turning references the spell which says "you as a target" and specifically says no to area of effect spells.
This is a case where the wording and the lack of wording to the contrary indicates that area of effect spells are included. If you wish to rule it the other way, then like Matthew said, you should clarify that before the game between DM and players. Otherwise, it should be ruled that the counterspell will work.
Again, it is such a specific case and it may never even come up in play. Personally, with a reflex save for half and just physical damage as the result, I do not think Fireball is a good use of a Ring of Counterspells. I would go for one of the many necromantic spells or death as a result of a failed save spells if they are under 6th level.
I'm neither the DM nor the player of the PC with the ring. I'm surprised to see that most people seem to feel the ring should be able to counter Fireball, but I'm not disappointed since the Fireball would have damaged my PC. Obviously the DM can just make a call on this, but we play multiple games with different people as DM and like to have consistent rulings. I probably wouldn't let the ring counter Fireball, but I'm not the enlightened despot of our local gaming groups, just one among several DMs.
We don't have anybody who can cast Feeblemind yet since we're 10th level and have a Mystic Theurge instead of a regular Wizard or Cleric. This is doubly unfortunate since there's currently a nalfeshnee spamming Feeblemind at us and we can neither counter nor cure it. We've probably been Fireballed well over a dozen times in this campaign though. I've taken Protection from Energy, but we don't usually know just when we'll be Fireballed since the enemy mages generally start out Invisible. We also often get hit with Lightning Bolts instead - variety is the spice of death I suppose...
Somebody brought up the idea of wearing multiple rings. Would that be viable, or would all the rings go off the first time there was a Fireball? If the guy with the ring ever gets a day off to call a new familiar maybe we could get it multiple rings, charge them all up, and have it swap on a new ring after each Fireball.
EDIT: a late thought - If the ring works against Fireball would it work against Black Tentacles? In other words, would it work against Fireball because the wearer is in the area or only because the Fireball has a "direct" effect on the wearer?
I would have to say that, yes, you can Counterspell a Black Tentacles spell so I would think the same reasoning applies to the "cast upon" wearer of the ring. I know some folks do not see it this way but remember how situational these applications are. Even though you are getting hit with Fireball spells frequently, that is the least of your problem with the Feeblemind and other spells and spell-like abilities going on out there.
Also, I would hate to be nasty, but if two characters were wearing a Ring of Counterspells or one character was wearing two rings and they both had Fireball, I would call them both expended with the single Fireball counterspell. It doesn't say that only one ring is discharged, so I would play the nasty DM in the case.
Obviously you can counterspell Black Tentacles, but would Black Tentacles being cast in your area could as it being "cast upon" you? What if the spell in question were Wall of Fire? Would it be countered if the Wall did damage to the wearer for being within 10 feet or only if the wearer was directly touched by the Wall?
I guess the problem is that the term "cast upon" doesn't seem to have a well defined rules meaning. I'm not here to argue that allowing the ring to counter Fireballs is overpowered or not allowing it is underpowered. I just wonder how it is "supposed" to work.
Again, I would suggest that "Cast upon" means if you are in the area of effect at the time of casting. That can include Black Tentacles and even Wall of Fire (but if you are outside the wall's area and later move into the area it's too late to counter the spell - no, being 10' away from the wall's area is not being "cast upon", the spell has specific rules for figuring out its area, you're just getting collateral damage at that point if you're outside the area but within 10').
I agree with DM Blake, just ask "is the ring of counterspell wearer the target or in the area of effect of the spell that is cast and that is in the ring?" If the answer is yes, then it counterspells it. If the answer is no, then it does not counterspell it.
Like was also mentioned, being in an area that is affected by a spell such as the 10 or 20 damage ranges of a Wall of Fire is not in the area of effect. If the wall was cast and it went through your square, then it would be considered to be cast "upon" you. If it is cast and then you walk through it, no counterspell.
Some spells, like Summon Monster, would not be able to be counterspelled this way as I cannot see how the spell would be cast "upon" you. Now if you were a caster and were prepared to counter spell a Summon Monster then that would work.
Basically it applies mainly to target and area effect spells.
I don't think WoF technically has an "area" since it is an "effect" spell. The spell description does use the word "area", but that seems to refer to 20 feet near the wall where creatures take fire damage rather than to the wall itself.
Interpreted "cast upon" as "targeted by" seems to lead to fewer questions than interpreting it as "affected by". I guess you could interpret it as "targeted by, in the area of, or touching the effect of". That seems like quite a lot of interpretation for a somewhat vague phrase, but it might be what we go with for now.
Bigger Club - Always ruling for the defender is an interesting idea, but deciding what's "unclear" could still be problematic.
It's clearly going to come down to a DM call.
I'd allow it, I agree with DM Blake on this.
Well, the answer seems open to me, so I hit the FAQ button.
I would say that Pathfinder uses the word "target" when defining a spell that is cast at a specific character(s). "Upon" is less defined, and I would probably read it as "affected" rather then "targeted".
One additional thought. Every spell that gets added to the game makes the ring a worse item. I would be inclined to make the ring more versatile, rather then less, and even be open to allowing it to apply to any "3rd level arcane evocation spell" rather then a specific spell.
The ring of counterspells works by using the spell saved inside it as a "readied action" to counter the same spell.
In the counterspell section, it doesn't say anywhere that a spell has to be targeting you in order to counter it.
That might be a how the ring is triggered, but the wording is unclear. If it were my game, I'd say that if the spell effected the wearer of the ring in any way, the rings defensive nature would kick in and attempt to counter it.
Bigger Club - In this case we pretty much followed your rule of thumb. The player with the ring wanted it to work, and telling him it didn't work probably would have led to a longer delay than just letting it work. It was just a 6d6 Fireball anyhow, so it wasn't a big deal.
I try to take any rules questions which come up during our games to the boards for clarification though. Often I can find an official ruling or at least a general consensus. I think the opinion here is leaning towards allowing the ring to counter Fireballs although there seems to be a fair amount of uncertainty.
|
Upon the wearer is a uniquely utilized term when it comes to this item. From the Ring of Counterspells: should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action. Using the exact same language in 3.5, the designers stated in the FAQ that [t]he ring of counterspells counters spells that are cast on you only, not necessarily a spell that affects you.
Fireball is the perfect example as to the difference between a "target" spell and one "cast upon" the ring wearer. Fireball actually targets a specific square, and from there it expands. The 3.5 FAQ went on to clarify that if a fireball targeted the player's square (aka "ground zero"), the spell would be negated. However, if the spell targeted his ally next to him, the spell would not be countered because the player is now subject to the area effect (the "blast zone"). The fireball was never cast "upon" him but rather someone else.
Upon the wearer allows the ring to accomplish what a Ring of Spell Turning cannot. Spell turning is very specific: target spells only, and does not affect area. The Ring of Counterspells has no such descriptors, and to give meaning to the term "upon the wearer" the designers have given it a bit more latitude in what it can stop.
(I was the PC in our case, and I put feeblemind in it instead. Which was useful exactly once in the campaign, but it sure was useful then.)
There is the whole problem with this item. It is so very situational. Millions of spells in this game, nope, not even exaggerating, and you wear an item that can protect you from exactly one of them. One in a million.
Me, I prefer to wear items that will work more often than one in a million, which to me, means this item is vendor trash from the get go. I can only wear two rings (normally) and I can easily think of two better rings that are a million times more useful (i.e. a million times out of a million).
I know, this is the Rules Forum, but this item needs a rework. Badly.
Until then, I'm inclined to rule it as favorably as the RAW will allow, just in the off chance I have a PC wandering around with this junk until he can find a better ring to replace it.
I like having a huge amount of buffs up all the time and putting greater dispel magic in the ring of couter-spells.
Upon the wearer is a uniquely utilized term when it comes to this item. From the Ring of Counterspells: should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action. Using the exact same language in 3.5, the designers stated in the FAQ that [t]he ring of counterspells counters spells that are cast on you only, not necessarily a spell that affects you.
Fireball is the perfect example as to the difference between a "target" spell and one "cast upon" the ring wearer. Fireball actually targets a specific square, and from there it expands. The 3.5 FAQ went on to clarify that if a fireball targeted the player's square (aka "ground zero"), the spell would be negated. However, if the spell targeted his ally next to him, the spell would not be countered because the player is now subject to the area effect (the "blast zone"). The fireball was never cast "upon" him but rather someone else.
Upon the wearer allows the ring to accomplish what a Ring of Spell Turning cannot. Spell turning is very specific: target spells only, and does not affect area. The Ring of Counterspells has no such descriptors, and to give meaning to the term "upon the wearer" the designers have given it a bit more latitude in what it can stop.
My only counterpoint to this, is that fireball is never targeted on a square. Only on square intersections. Thus there is NO possible way that a ring of counterspells would ever apply to a fireball with this interpretation.
Yeah, since a Fireball would be centered on an intersection I'm not sure which of the 4 squares it would "belong" to, presumably all of them?
It sounds like people think this ring kind of sucks and might as well counter any spell which affects the user when it is cast. I will take the word back to my group.
To those suggesting better options for what spell to put in the ring, we don't have anybody who can cast Feeblemind yet, and a Nalfeshnee's Feeblemind is a spell-like ability, so it can't be countered anyhow. Wednesday night we'll "roll high or die".
Touc's post prompted me to look up the 3.5 FAQ. Keep in mind this is the 3.5 FAQ and not Pathfinder.
Can a ring of counterspells counter a fireball spell or
other area effect if the wearer is in the affected area?
The ring of counterspells counters spells that are cast on
you only, not necessarily a spell that affects you. So if you
were the target of a fireball, then the ring would counter it;
however, if you were just standing too close to the intended
target, you would be affected normally and the ring of
counterspells would not come into play.
Paizo could very well have a different ruling. Absent any official word though, I would have to agree that it's safe to follow the 3.5 ruling
|
|
Touc's post prompted me to look up the 3.5 FAQ. Keep in mind this is the 3.5 FAQ and not Pathfinder.
Paizo could very well have a different ruling. Absent any official word though, I would have to agree that it's safe to follow the 3.5 ruling
Can a ring of counterspells counter a fireball spell or
other area effect if the wearer is in the affected area?
The ring of counterspells counters spells that are cast on
you only, not necessarily a spell that affects you. So if you
were the target of a fireball, then the ring would counter it;
however, if you were just standing too close to the intended
target, you would be affected normally and the ring of
counterspells would not come into play.
Except a fireball (AFAIK) is never cast on someone, it's always cast on an apex. You'll always be "just standing too close" in that case. Heck, with the above wording you could stretch some other rules into ridiculousness too.
DM: The Fireball goes Boom! You take 30 points of damage.
Player: Wait, I have that on my Ring of Counterspells. The Fireball is countered.
DM: Well, no, the Fireball wasn't cast on you.
Player: Ok, well, then I guess I didn't take any damage since it wast cast on me.
DM: Well, no, you still take damage.
Player: Um, if it wasn't cast on me, how did it hit me?
DM: Uh, you see, it wasn't cast on you, but it still, uh, includes you.
Player: The ring says I can counter any spell cast upon me if I have the same spell stored in the ring. Was the Fireball cast on me or not?
DM: Weeellllll, it wasn't cast on you, it was cast near you. Boom! You take 30 points of damage. Oh, and some of your stuff might be on fire.
Player: Don't you mean some of my stuff might be near fire?
The wording of Ring of Spell Turning is completely different for Ring of Counterspelling. Why is that? Oversight? Maybe, but now we're talking RAI vs. RAW. If we assume it was not oversight, then the only other conclusion was that the developers want the Ring of Counterspelling to behave differently so they deliberately (e.g. no oversight) worded it to include any spell cast "upon" the wearer.
Any other assumption is just RAI.
For some reason, I've been operating under the assumption that for area of effect spells, the wearer of the ring of counterspells was immune to that spell, but it didn't counter the whole effect.
No idea where that came from - but it's what I would do if the wearer was mistaken about the effect.
Official Rules Response
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnu
Ring of Counterspells: Does this counter area spells such as fireball?
The ring only affects spells that target you, not spells that include you in the area. One possible interpretation is that the ring would make you immune to that casting of the spell (and the rest of the area would be affected normally), but that would require additional exlplanatory language and create strange situations where you'd be immune to control water or guards and wards and able to wander freely through such effects. Instead, it is clearer to adjudicate if the ring only affects spells targeting you.
(The wording of the magic item may be clarified in future errata.)
Thanks, Paizo design team!!! I was a little concerned with the "strange situations" and think this ruling should be more straightforward.
I'd also like to thank everybody else who participated in the thread. I still think the ring could be pretty useful, especially if the function is added to an existing item such as a ring of protection. As an aside, this might not come up again for a while in our group since the PC who wore the ring got killed by babau demons last session.
Lincoln Hills - Long ago there was a man we called the Professor (because he worked as on at the local university). He had so much Intelligence that he realized intentionally killing off his PCs would raise the party's wealth as well as allowing him to cherry pick magic items by equipping himself at full WBL. The second or third time this happened the DM in his great Wisdom saw fit to make everything the PC was carrying disappear along with the PC. Most of the other DMs we know have adopted a similar rule. We're kind of careful about who gets to carry stuff now. It might seem like a silly, metagamey house rule, but like a Bard on the Roof I have little choice but to respect the group's Tradition.
Jiggy - Yeah, 6,000gp for immunity to a spell might not be a bad deal sometimes. The main problem I see is that you can't counter SLAs.