Calculating counteract level


Rules Discussion


Hopefully a simple question.

When counteracting something, using dispel magic as an example, is your counteract level:

a) The level of the spell doing the counteracting? (level 2 in this situation)

b) The level of the maximum level spell you can cast? (1/2 character level rounded up).

And can anyone point me to the precise rules where this is mentioned.

Under Counteracting (p458) I can see only:

- Rules for calculating the level of the effect you are trying to counteract (What you can counteract depends on the check result and the target’s level. If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level. Otherwise, halve its level and round up to determine its counteract level. If an effect’s level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature’s level).

- Rules for calculating the target DC

- Rules for calculating the check bonus (eg:the counteract check modifier is your spellcasting ability modifier plus your spellcasting proficiency bonus, plus any bonuses and penalties that specifically apply to counteract checks.)

- But no mention of the level of the Counteracting effect (only the one being counteracted).


You might try your luck under "Heightend Spells" page 299.

Quote:
...When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level...

Your counteract level is the level of the spell slot from which it is actually cast.


Ubertron_X wrote:

You might try your luck under "Heightend Spells" page 299.

Quote:
...When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level...
Your counteract level is the level of the spell slot from which it is actually cast.

Thanks! Yes that suggests that counteracting uses the level of the spell doing it. It's still a little vague, since in the counteracting section it only mentions the level of the effect being counteracted. But that quote does suggest that the level of the effect doing the counteracting is the spell level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did you try any of those?

Counteracting

Not exactly a rules reference, but still...


Yossarian wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:

You might try your luck under "Heightend Spells" page 299.

Quote:
...When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level...
Your counteract level is the level of the spell slot from which it is actually cast.
Thanks! Yes that suggests that counteracting uses the level of the spell doing it. It's still a little vague, since in the counteracting section it only mentions the level of the effect being counteracted. But that quote does suggest that the level of the effect doing the counteracting is the spell level.
CRB 459 wrote:
If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level.

It doesn't matter if it's the thing doing the Counteracting, or the thing being Counteracted. Counteract level is counteract level.

If you had an ability that told you to compare your AC to the enemy's AC, you would both still calculate your ACs the same way.


Aratorin wrote:


CRB 459 wrote:
If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level.

It doesn't matter if it's the thing doing the Counteracting, or the thing being Counteracted. Counteract level is counteract level.

.

You're missing some context, which matters with that quote, see the prior sentence:

What you can counteract depends on the check result and the target’s level. If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level.

In this context, 'the effect' refers to 'the level of the thing being effected'.

It's not clear from the language used on p458-9. However it is made much clearer by the reference Ubertron provided under heightening spells on p299.

Clearer language would be What you can counteract depends on the check result, and both your level and the target's level.


Yossarian wrote:
Aratorin wrote:


CRB 459 wrote:
If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level.

It doesn't matter if it's the thing doing the Counteracting, or the thing being Counteracted. Counteract level is counteract level.

.

You're missing some context, which matters with that quote, see the prior sentence:

What you can counteract depends on the check result and the target’s level. If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level.

In this context, 'the effect' refers to 'the level of the thing being effected'.

It's not clear from the language used on p458-9. However it is made much clearer by the reference Ubertron provided under heightening spells on p299.

Clearer language would be What you can counteract depends on the check result, and both your level and the target's level.

The results of the counteract action say that.

Quote:

Critical Success Counteract the target if its counteract level is no

more than 3 levels higher than your effect’s counteract level.
Success Counteract the target if its counteract level is no
more than 1 level higher than your effect’s counteract level.
Failure Counteract the target if its counteract level is lower
than your effect’s counteract level.
Critical Failure You fail to counteract the target.


Yes. I read all that multiple times before I posted my original question. And even quoted some of it in my OP. Mass quoting blocks of it back at me isn't really helpful.

As I said originally, it's somewhat ambiguous in that context. For instance there's also:

"If an effect’s level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature’s level."

Anyway, I think I have the answer now. So all's fine.


Reading the counteract section as a whole should be sufficient to provide the context that, even though a really fine-chopped parse might suggest that "If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level." only applies to one side of the counteract test, the counteract level of dispel magic is exactly as that passage of text says: whatever level it was cast at.

Going with half the caster's level, rounded up, instead cranks up the power of dispel magic considerably. The folly of which can be illustrated thusly: An enemy caster has spent an 8th-level spell slot to turn into a purple worm via monstrosity form. They are supposed to be a "big bad" so you are facing them when you are level 14.

According to the actual rules, you'd need to get a critical success when casting a 5th-level dispel magic or a regular success with a dispel magic of 7th-level (the highest you happen to have at your level).

According to your mistaken reading, because you are 14th level, you can cast a 2nd-level dispel magic and take down this 8th-level spell with a success, or literally any spell in the game with a critical success and still only at the cost of a 2nd-level spell slot.

Does that truly seem more likely to be the intended rule to you?


thenobledrake wrote:


According to your mistaken reading,

Mistaken? I asked for clarification, I've not read it one way or the other. If I'd have made a reading I'd not be here asking.

Quote:

because you are 14th level, you can cast a 2nd-level dispel magic and take down this 8th-level spell with a success, or literally any spell in the game with a critical success and still only at the cost of a 2nd-level spell slot.

Does that truly seem more likely to be the intended rule to you?

That's how it works in Pathfinder 1st edition: in that dispel magic used your caster level, not the spell level, to determine dispels. So yes, I can conceive that's how its intended to work since that's how the game worked for 10 years.


I apologize if I misread "Anyway, I think I have the answer now. So all's fine." as you having come to a decision.

As for 1st edition dispel working that way, that's not entirely accurate. You used your caster level, but you also rolled against a DC set by caster level so you still needed to be nearly as powerful as your opponent in order to have a good chance of success.

The part that is different is that in PF1 you did only have to spend a 3rd-level spell slot no matter the spell level of the effect you were attempting to dispel, but PF2 makes it pretty clear that would no longer be the case by how spells do not normally include benefits that increase based on caster level like PF1 spells did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Counteracting seems dead anyway, at least during the times it matters most (i.e. when you encounter the hard stuff). Having all relevant spells at max level and then having to succeed a 13+ check simply is too much effort for too little result.


Yes a lot has changed. Especially Counteracting.

Slightly confusing in this context, but a great change imho for making better use of lower levels spells, is that the spell DC is now based on the Proficiency of the caster, not the spell level.

In other words: for DCs its now caster level (as in the caster's proficiency), in 1st edition it used to be spell level. And for dispelling is reversed: it used to be caster level, and now it's spell level.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Counteracting seems dead anyway, at least during the times it matters most (i.e. when you encounter the hard stuff). Having all relevant spells at max level and then having to succeed a 13+ check simply is too much effort for too little result.

I agree with that: it's a big ask to have casters fill their highest level spell slots with heightened dispel magic.


Yossarian wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Counteracting seems dead anyway, at least during the times it matters most (i.e. when you encounter the hard stuff). Having all relevant spells at max level and then having to succeed a 13+ check simply is too much effort for too little result.
I agree with that: it's a big ask to have casters fill their highest level spell slots with heightened dispel magic.

My strategy so far is to have my counteract spells one level lower than my maximum spell level, which means - given most NPC spellcasters advantage in numbers - I have an approximate 40% chance to counteract my own level. Everything else seems too unreal to even try.

+1 to +3 level opponents have a staggering numbers advantage and would require an lucky or even extremely lucky roll.

+4 levels opponents can only be countered by a nat20 anyway.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Counteracting seems dead anyway, at least during the times it matters most (i.e. when you encounter the hard stuff). Having all relevant spells at max level and then having to succeed a 13+ check simply is too much effort for too little result.

Remove Disease was clutch in our AoA book 2 game.


Aratorin wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Counteracting seems dead anyway, at least during the times it matters most (i.e. when you encounter the hard stuff). Having all relevant spells at max level and then having to succeed a 13+ check simply is too much effort for too little result.
Remove Disease was clutch in our AoA book 2 game.

Spoiler:
We are not there yet but have a few infected already, so being the cleric of our group I will get some firsthand experience how *easy* those diseases can be removed. My best guess is that I still need a top level spell slot and at least need to roll a 12+, because challenges that do not use your top spell slot and have a high chance of failure are apparently for the weak. So what was this talk about regular low level encounters and challenges again?

.
The one and only good thing is that I can prepare the spell multiple times and diseases usually do not kill fast. Trying to counteract in battle seems a lot more futile though, that is unless the encounter contains at least some mooks.


About AoA diseases

Spoiler:

They are pretty easy to remove, one of them you basically need to critically fail the check to not remove it.

While the second one will need to roll a 11 or 12 in the die.

Both can be removed by the lvl 3 version of the spell.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The other thing about Dispel Magic is it can be used in your less high spots to strip under level buffs quite nicely. Yeah you might not remove the bosses biggest spells but stripping Haste from a lvl 12 enemy is going to make a big difference, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Counteracting seems dead anyway...

From my point of view it actually seems more playable than in most prior editions of the game because it's less likely to work out when it would be at it's most potent.

No more NPC spell-casting "big bad" getting their combat strategy shut down by a "I guess I'll prep a dispel magic just for the heck of it" amount of investment, and no more "am I being a jerk if I do this?" stress about having NPCs throw dispels at the PCs because in both cases it actually requires a more serious trade-off to be effective thanks to the changes in spells in general.


thenobledrake wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Counteracting seems dead anyway...

From my point of view it actually seems more playable than in most prior editions of the game because it's less likely to work out when it would be at it's most potent.

No more NPC spell-casting "big bad" getting their combat strategy shut down by a "I guess I'll prep a dispel magic just for the heck of it" amount of investment, and no more "am I being a jerk if I do this?" stress about having NPCs throw dispels at the PCs because in both cases it actually requires a more serious trade-off to be effective thanks to the changes in spells in general.

I actually did that with a Lich once. Extremely annoying, especially because I was a Sorcerer.

After three rounds of counterspells he ended up charging me in melee.


Counteracting is way easier in this version than in previous versions. Just cast a spell one level higher and it's an easy roll (you only need to avoid a critical failure to the roll). But I agree that it's more a thing for spontaneous casters who can easily cast a spell one level higher.


SuperBidi wrote:
Counteracting is way easier in this version than in previous versions. Just cast a spell one level higher and it's an easy roll (you only need to avoid a critical failure to the roll). But I agree that it's more a thing for spontaneous casters who can easily cast a spell one level higher.

This would be less of a problem if I could actually overmatch any given, relevant effect (what a relevant effect is may of course be an entirely other discussion). At the moment every single spell or effect in our current adventure path always seems to occur at max spell level+1 (i.e. spell level 3 vs spell or effect level 4), so at the moment the best I can do is a subpar roll because enemies or effects that can impose this kind of effects always have the numbers advantage. Looking forward to see how this works out at higher level once the overall range of spell levels allows for more "breathing space".

At the moment however the combination of reduced spell slots and reduced spell effectivity (if for any reason you did not manage to memorize the spell in the correct slot) is killing counteracting for me. Dispel Magic, Remove Fear, Remove Paralysis, Restore Senses, Neutralize Poison, chose 3 and pray that you are not jumped by a monster that uses the other 2.

In comparison to PF1 in Pf2 lower level spell slots become outdated very fast, respecively the type of spell that is still useful in those lower level slots is very much restricted. Most utility spells and buffs/debuffs will of course still be working, but forget about incapacitating, counteracting and at least some damaging spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Counteracting is way easier in this version than in previous versions. Just cast a spell one level higher and it's an easy roll (you only need to avoid a critical failure to the roll). But I agree that it's more a thing for spontaneous casters who can easily cast a spell one level higher.

This would be less of a problem if I could actually overmatch any given, relevant effect (what a relevant effect is may of course be an entirely other discussion). At the moment every single spell or effect in our current adventure path always seems to occur at max spell level+1 (i.e. spell level 3 vs spell or effect level 4), so at the moment the best I can do is a subpar roll because enemies or effects that can impose this kind of effects always have the numbers advantage. Looking forward to see how this works out at higher level once the overall range of spell levels allows for more "breathing space".

At the moment however the combination of reduced spell slots and reduced spell effectivity (if for any reason you did not manage to memorize the spell in the correct slot) is killing counteracting for me. Dispel Magic, Remove Fear, Remove Paralysis, Restore Senses, Neutralize Poison, chose 3 and pray that you are not jumped by a monster that uses the other 2.

In comparison to PF1 in Pf2 lower level spell slots become outdated very fast, respecively the type of spell that is still useful in those lower level slots is very much restricted. Most utility spells and buffs/debuffs will of course still be working, but forget about incapacitating, counteracting and at least some damaging spells.

I agree, I don't see Dispel Magic being used before mid levels. But this is a killer. The Dragon dispelling all Air Walk and Fly spells mid air with level 5 Dispel Magic, the Sahuagin Cleric dispelling Water Breathing with a level 4 Dispel Magic, I see lots of strategies for monsters to cripple PCs. For PCs, it needs more coordination unfortunately. But being able to dispel all the annoying spells (Haste, Invisibility, True Seeing...) with 90% success is awesome.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:


I agree, I don't see Dispel Magic being used before mid levels.

What do you call mid-levels? In the AP we are playing through my 6th Cleric has had to keep two Dispels in their highest level slots in case the first one fails (being vague so as to not too give to much away about the AP).

Sovereign Court

My experience with counteracting is that as a game system it's actually doing fairly well;

- It's not easy to counter a boss' most powerful stuff. It shouldn't be. But given a couple of days to retry, you can. If it happens on the first try in combat, that's probably due to a critical, and should be celebrated in the same way as the barbarian landing a mega damage critical.

- Counteracting mooks is fairly easy. This helps in protecting the party from getting swarmed by ads.

- What especially surprised me, but is kinda neat, is how often you can counteract hazards. Encounters with one enemy plus a hazard aren't uncommon. It's a good design pattern actually for when you want to present a boss on his own, but you don't want to just use a super high level boss that's impossible to fight. So adding a hazard instead of minions keeps the "solo" vibe but helps create the right difficulty. For the party on the other hand, using a max level Dispel Magic to effectively take out the "lieutenant hazard" is a pretty good opening move. You can think of Dispel Magic as basically being an Incapacitation effect used against a hazard. When the hazard is not the highest level thing in the encounter, that's got a good chance of succeeding. Much better actually than using a saving throw based spell against a lieutenant.

Age of Ashes book 2:
We shut down a lot of dragon totems this way, which made the rest of the fights much easier.


Fangtasmagoria wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:


I agree, I don't see Dispel Magic being used before mid levels.

What do you call mid-levels? In the AP we are playing through my 6th Cleric has had to keep two Dispels in their highest level slots in case the first one fails (being vague so as to not too give to much away about the AP).

Level 10, roughly. It's true I should have phrased: "I don't see Dispel Magic used much before mid levels". As it's perfectly possible to take it before that, but it's extremely expensive (as you say, you have to take it on your higher spell slots for it to be effective).


Ascalaphus wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Strange. In contrast to the hazzard at the beginning of book 2 our GM gave no indication that usage of Dispel Magic would be possible and we are currently half way through the book. And be assured we did a lot of knowledge checks on how these things work.

So apart of high slot requirements knowing or having info about Dispel Magic actually working seems another hurdle to overcome. Unless you try and Dispel into the blue, but apart from a signature spell Sorcerer I can't see that happening much.


I keep dispel magic as a signature spell on my spontaneous casters. It's best as a spell you can spontaneously heighten as needed for something particularly nasty.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Calculating counteract level All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.