In the same way that spells like "Light" counter or dispel "Darkness," it makes sense to me that a Cure Light Wounds spell would be able to counter-spell Inflict Light Wounds.
Is this confirmed or denied anywhere in the rules?
If this is not possible, would anyone perceive unforeseen complications with establishing it as a home-brew ruling?
It's denied in the rules on the fact that it isn't specifically allowed like light and darkness are. That being said I can't see an issue with allowing them to be used this way.
As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself.
So the answer to any such question is "not unless the spell description says so" and in this case the spell description doesn't say so.
That said, I see no problem with house-ruling that a cure will counter an inflict of equal or lower level and vice versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of what Azothath is saying is already in the rules for counterspell. [...] They would have to be the 'same' version of the spell, it would require a feat to use a greater version of cure/inflict to counter a lower one.
The counterspell rules neither say nor imply such a thing. If the OP houserules this at all, it may as well be the "equal or greater level" thing that light and darkness do---no reason to require a feat.
And neither do the rules require you to use the range of the spell. You don't have to touch the same target you are targeting the opponent with your action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And neither do the rules require you to use the range of the spell. You don't have to touch the same target you are targeting the opponent with your action.
Well, the opponent has to be within range.
How Counterspells Work: 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.
So this will work better with a mass cure/inflict.
I like the idea of house-ruling it. Basically, follow all standard rules of counterspell, but you can use an opposing inflict/cure spell of equal or greater power. The requirement to use a higher level spell is only when using the "of the same school" perk of the Improved Counterspell feat. It's a limitation of the feat, so I don't think it applies in this situation.
An alternative might be conj(healing) vs hit point damage only necromancy spells... you'd have to verify that.
Azothath, I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate?
Well, the opponent has to be within range.
Interesting. Does this mean that you could counterspell the opponent's spell by being within touch range of him/her while being outside of touch range of the intended target?
You -> Opponent -> Opponent's Target
From a physical or direction standpoint, your magic wouldn't be "getting in the way" of the opponent's magic (a ranged counterspell could be seen as "intercepting" the opposing spell, but not here.) I guess in this case you're just nullifying the spell at its source before it has a chance to emanate.
Well, the opponent has to be within range.Interesting. Does this mean that you could counterspell the opponent's spell by being within touch range of him/her while being outside of touch range of the intended target?
You -> Opponent -> Opponent's Target
From a physical or direction standpoint, your magic wouldn't be "getting in the way" of the opponent's magic (a ranged counterspell could be seen as "intercepting" the opposing spell, but not here.) I guess in this case you're just nullifying the spell at its source before it has a chance to emanate.
Right. It kinda has to be this way, otherwise you'd have to know who was going to cast and what they were going to cast and their target---which they aren't obliged to determine until the very moment of casting. (At least, I think that's the reasoning behind it.)
"Here's how that particular rule actually works. To counter a spell of the opposing descriptor, you ready an action just like any other counterspell. Just as normal for counterspell, the target of the spell must be within range (which, without Reach Spell metamagic, is touch for most light and darkness spells). "
You need to be within range of the spell you are casting to counterspell.