|
What happens to a character who is under the effects if a haste spell if they fail their save against a stone golem's (SU) slow attack?
I can't work out if the two would negate each other, or the haste would be suppressed for the duration of the slow, or something else entirely. And if it is the suppression; what if they fail again (the slow is a free action every other round) during the suppressed period?
Any advice?
To give a more expands answer:
The first time the slow effect goes off, any hasted party members who are hit by it simply have their haste effect dispelled. No check, no save, nothing. Gone. Diametrically opposed spells work like that.
After that, the slow ability will work as normal, causing any nearby creatures to become slowed if they fail their will save.
Never noticed the "no save" thing before. Not a fan of that ruling.
|
|
Thanks for the link, but...
"It depends on whether you are using the spell as a counterspell or as a dispel.
If used as a counterspell, your spell has no effect other than to counter the target spell. If used as a dispel, there may be "spillover" from your spell or the target spell, depending on whether you affect more or fewer targets than the opponent's spell."
The golem, being INT - mindless, is neither using it as a counterspell or a dispel, those surely require deliberate acts, it's just casting slow.
(And can you counterspell with a supernatural ability?)
Thanks for the link, but...
"It depends on whether you are using the spell as a counterspell or as a dispel.
If used as a counterspell, your spell has no effect other than to counter the target spell. If used as a dispel, there may be "spillover" from your spell or the target spell, depending on whether you affect more or fewer targets than the opponent's spell."
The golem, being INT - mindless, is neither using it as a counterspell or a dispel, it's just casting slow.
(And can you counterspell with a supernatural ability?)
Using it as a counterspell or as a dispel isn't a matter of intent, it's a matter of timing. Counterspelling would be if you cast it at the exact same time as the haste effect, preventing it from even going off. Dispel is after the effect has gone off. In the case, the slow effect is on an attack, so it's never going to be a counterspell. If it hits a hasted target, auto-dispel.
Counterspelliing is holding your action in preparation of somebody casting a spell, then counterspelling it as they try to cast it. The golem cannot and will not take that action. Instead it is dispelling, not actively like a wizard casting dispel magic, but passively just because slow counters and dispels haste. The golem is not taking a dispel action. Simply the fact that slow is being cast on a target that has haste active means it is being dispelled. The same thing would happen if an enemy spellcaster tried to cast slow on you. Even though he is not actively attempting to dispel the haste, the spells just cancel each other out.
Counterspelling doesn't mean what y'all seem to think it does.
|
Counterspelling doesn't mean what y'all seem to think it does.
I don't think QuidEst or CampinCarl got anything wrong about counterspelling. What are you talking about?
To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.
If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can't do either of these things.
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
Yeah, I'm going to ignore the "no save" ruling in my games. It has a very bad feel to it, and doesn't seem to be existent in the regular text. Sounds more like a houserule that accidentally made its way into RAW.
Counterspelling doesn't mean what y'all seem to think it does.
Care to elaborate? If I am wrong, I am more than willing to be corrected.
Yeah, I'm going to ignore the "no save" ruling in my games. It has a very bad feel to it, and doesn't seem to be existent in the regular text. Sounds more like a houserule that accidentally made its way into RAW.
I think that's a pretty reasonable houserule to implement. However it does make the vice-versa (using haste to dispel slow) more powerful by comparison because no check needs to be made.
My point is that from a balance standpoint, it makes haste more powerful than slow (and it was already more powerful IMHO anyways).
But this is a discussion for the houserule forums, not the rules forums. The rules are clear; there is no check or save involved.
It was that way in 3.5?
It has to do with the oddness of the order of operations. If in a turn I have slow cast on me and then haste, there's a fair chance I have haste on me at the end of the turn. If instead I have haste cast on me and then slow, there is zero chance I have haste on me at the end of the turn.
If a spell normally requires a failed save to have an effect, then a spell shouldn't ignore the save just because the target already has another spell on it.