Warpriest and counteract checks


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see a lot of talk on here about warpriest vs. cloistered clerics. The arguments against warpriest generally include lower proficiency on spell bonus and its corresponding spell DC as well as making counteract not work.

I want to leave alone the topic of spell bonus. I understand that one fairly well. My question is how much of the hate on counteract is hyperbole.

So here is my math on things...

A warpriest build is likely to start with only a 16 WIS in order to boost other stats. Also its proficiency is often going to be behind that of a cloistered cleric by one notch. So for half of the levels the ability modifier will be one point lower and proficiency may be two points lower. So a total difference of -3 compared to cloistered cleric worst-case.

Like I said earlier, for spell bonus that is fairly easy to understand: 15% less chance of landing attack spells.

For counteract though, you can counteract anything up to a counteract level +1 with just a success. For anything of a lower counteract level that what you are casting with you can successfully counteract the effect on a fail result of the roll. I'm not worried about the crit success of counteracting at level +3 - it is just silly to be expecting to have reliable results when going up against something at CR +3 or more.

So let's take as an example a monster that has a poison attack vs a cleric with neutralize poison. And there are three cases: 1) cleric is equal to the level of the monster. 2) cleric is lower than the monster. 3) cleric is higher than the monster.

1) At equal level, the cleric will need to roll a success. And the warpriest has a 15% lower chance to roll a success.

2) With the monster at slightly higher level than the cleric, the cleric will still need to roll a success. This is the same case as #1 (as long as the monster level isn't more than 1 or 2 levels higher. If it is, then both types of cleric will require critical success to counteract and neither will be reliable.)

3) With the monster at lower level (low enough to reduce the counteract level by at least 1) then the cleric only needs to roll a fail on the counteract check. Technically the warpriest still has a 15% lower chance of rolling that high, but for both of them the probability of critical failure is fairly low.

In the encounter building guidelines, it recommends having multiple enemy creatures - generally somewhere around the same number of player characters. In order to get 3 enemy creatures on the table, you usually have to drop them all to party level -1 in order to stay within the XP budget. You can have an on-level enemy or two, but that will drop the level of the other enemies down to level -3 or more. So I would estimate that for any given enemy, it will be in scenario #1 above about 1/3 of the time and in scenario #2 the other 2/3 of the time. When following the encounter building guidelines (spitballing a bit here - YMMV).

So for about 2/3 of the enemies that you face, the warpriest can counteract their effects on a fail. Does that really justify the sentiment 'if you play a warpriest, you won't be counteracting almost anything'?

Or is this sentiment derived from the overtuned APs that don't follow the encounter building guidelines and typically have you up against level +2 enemies?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The issue I have had with counteracting is that spontaneous casters with dispel magic as a signature spell, will happily blow through 10 or more spell slots trying to counteract a powerful magic effect preventing the party from accessing the dungeon that is probably out of their league, if they think they have a shot with a lucky crit, which they will against fairly powerful magics.

Prepared casters can do this too, deciding to memorize dispel magic in their top 3 slots and fire off dispel magic after dispel magic, but they can rarely just do it at the end of an adventuring day with their extra spell slots like the sorcerer can.

It makes you have to be really careful when you are home brewing a sandbox, because dispelling a wall spell or other protective magic is, in particular, a dangerous way to get in way over your head. Especially as the players will probably have tried to identify the magic before trying to dispel it, but probably failed to identify it (since it is higher level) and really won't know what they are dealing with.

As far as Warpriests being ineffective at counteracting, I share your general sense of disbelief, but I think there are a lot of people who think that, since they are going to be a proficiency level behind anyway, they might as well also tank wisdom, so that they are dealing with a 12 wisdom that they never boost, which does get into the realm of making the effort to counter act anything close to on level nearly impossible.

In my opinion, that is a deliberate choice a player makes not to minimally keep up with a key stat for a class, so they are getting what they signed up for. Even if you start at 14, you can be at a 18 by level 10 fairly easily. Also, counteract checks can be hero pointed so you usually have a way of getting the job done when you really need to, if being a counteracting warpriest was something you want to be able to do.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I just consider counteracting punishing enough to be discouraged by the mechanics themselves. Idk if that's a conscious design decision, but I'd rather save my slots for fun spells than try to vainly "nope" the dm


Many Warpriests leave Wisdom at 12 (or even dump it to 10) and go for max Strength and Charisma. These Warpriests are behind by quite a bit.

Also, counteract goes both ways. A Warpriest's buffs are easier to dispel than those of a Cloistered Cleric


WWHsmackdown wrote:
I just consider counteracting punishing enough to be discouraged by the mechanics themselves.

Pretty much this. I've seen people with max chance fail multiple times in a row. I can only imagine trying it with lesser rolls. I'll concede I rarely see affects with a level lower that what we're using to dispel and with a roll that you could crit on without a natural 20, so I could see a different point of view if someone sees a lot of lower level effects with lower DC's.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:

Many Warpriests leave Wisdom at 12 (or even dump it to 10) and go for max Strength and Charisma. These Warpriests are behind by quite a bit.

...

This: Cloistered Clerics only really need Wisdom + Charisma, while Warpriests generally need a good strength and constitution scores and at least a little dexterity to be even remotely effective.

Once you resolve to be a melee combatant, it becomes harder to justify a decent wisdom at creation when you basically want 5 'decent' ability scores:
  • Strength: Every +1 here is +1 hit/damage with your melee weapon, plus you'll want a 16 for the 'heavier' medium armor options
  • Dexterity: Since you are limited to medium armor, you'll probably want a 12 here, or a 14 if you can't swing a 16 strength somehow.
  • Constitution: As an '8hp per level' melee, 14 is probably the minimum you want here.
  • Intelligence: It's your dump stat.
  • Wisdom: Nice for spells and will saves, but you are already going to lag behind on casting proficiency, so focusing on attack roll/save spells is probably not going to work great anyway, so keeping this stat low and focusing on buff spells is a decent option.
  • Charisma: Every +1 here is an extra healing spell per day.
So, your physical stats have already eaten up a 16, a 14, and a 12: Assuming a human* character, that accounts for at least one of your ancestry boosts, one Background boost, and one of your general boosts in strength, a general boost to dexterity, and a general boost + ancestry or background boost to constitution, leaving the mandatory class boost to wisdom plus one general boost and one background/ancestry boost among your mental stats. This translates to a choice between
  • 12 Wisdom + 14 Charisma (3 font heals per day),
  • 14 Wisdom + 12 Charisma (2 font heals per day), or
  • 16 Wisdom + 10 Charisma (1 font heal per day).
Since you are already going to be 'behind the curve' on divine proficiency, dumping Wisdom for extra heals is a reasonable choice (why give up extra heals for something you aren't going to be very good at anyway?).

*Non-humans have a bit of an advantage if their flaw stat happens to be Intelligence: Otherwise, they're probably going to spend a boost offsetting the flaw and end up in roughly the same position (or worse) as humans.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a Warpriest that has not dumped WIS but made the conscious decision to be +1 behind in bonuses from level 1 to 20 in order to boost other stats and that has already reached level 7 (and beyond) I can confirm that I am actually 15% (or -3) worse at counteracting than our party Wizard (e.g. Dispel Magic against hazards). So for example if he needs a 11+ versus a level +0 enemy effect or hazard I will need a 14+, if he needs a 13+ versus a level+2 enemy effect or hazard I will need a 16+, just for a simple success.

Keep in mind that baseline chances may easily be skewed by other design choices, e.g. hazards or enemy spellcasters that often seem to feature higher DCs than the players, even at one and the the same level. Also keep in mind that for the most parts counteracting will only be effective for the top or one level below slots and this poses a huge change in game dynamics (not only for WPs), simply because situational but low level spells are a thing of the past (e.g. my level 17 Cleric that I used to play during Kingmaker still always had a level 1 Remove Fear memorized).

And of couse it is correct that against lower level effects counteracting also works on a fail, however the problem with that is that even if we disregard the possible overabundance of high level enemies and hazards in the early APs, lower level effects are often also less relevant to counteract (of course not always). A low level enemy using an effect or spell with the incapacitation rider often does not need to be counteracted at all (happend to our group with certain hazards in volume 2 of AoA).

For example a level-2 venomous creature will usually a) hit less, b) deal less base damage, c) be saved against more often and d) inflict a less severe condition (but of course there will be usually a couple of them). In comparison a level+2 venomous creature will usually a) hit more often, b) deal more damage (often a crit), c) be saved against less often and d) inflict a more severe condition. This leaves my WP with the very unsatisfying choice to either use his one memorized top slot of Neutralize Poison in a low intensity fight that the party is probably going to win anyway OR to gamble on the above mentioned high roll (usually at least 14 and up).

So yes, if the problem is of lower level or static counteracting still works, even as a WP, and I used it extensively during volume 2 of AoA, just to deal with negative conditions that could be removed during a couple of days of downtime. However if your problem is of higher level and/or pressing I am not willing to take bets that I will have the appropriate spell memorized and even if I do have, that it has a good chance of succeeding.

P.S.: I am not a big fan of the counteract mechanics as a whole, as the decision to make them slot dependant leaves a whole lot to be desired, even for regular spellcasters. There are only so many top slots, which means that without prior knowledge and preparation most situational spells that depend on the counteract mechanics are somewhat shafted. And this is even before the lower success chances of a WP come into effect.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:

...

P.S.: I am not a big fan of the counteract mechanics as a whole, as the decision to make them slot dependant leaves a whole lot to be desired, even for regular spellcasters. There are only so many top slots, which means that without prior knowledge and preparation most situational spells that depend on the counteract mechanics are somewhat shafted. And this is even before the lower success chances of a WP come into effect.
Gotta agree with this: Counter-spells have been consistantly nerfed over the last couple of editions:
  • D&D3.x: Counter-spells just work automatically, so potions and scrolls work great.
  • PF1: Counter-spells have caster level checks, so scrolls and potions won't cut it anymore, but at least low-level spell slots aren't really in short supply and clerics at least can convert them to heals if you don't actually need them.
  • PF2: Spell level now matters, so casters have to prepare top level slots (which are generally in short supply) in case a specific counter is needed.
Clerics at least get the option of Channeled Succor, but that still leaves them with the dilemma of 'Do I prepare a Neutralize Poison in one of my top level slots in case we run into a poison? Or should I take something more likely to be used?'

I can see why they moved in this direction: Cheap low-level consumable counters make a lot of threats seem silly, and I still remember how disappointed my GM sounded when he thought he had actually hit our Wrath of the Righteous party with a nasty poison until I pointed out that my oracle buffed the entire party with extended Delay Poisons every evening and would have days to actually purge the toxins...

Still, the current system just seems to discourage countering in general, as you need to sink a fair amount of resources into countering something you might not actually encounter (and which you still will have a fair chance of failing to counter even if you are fully prepared).


Honestly, the best way to manage counter-spelling is an oracle with the Blessed One archetype. Lay on hands + the mercy line of feats means you can counteract with a top level spell while also healing and the Blessed Spell means you can use your normal top slots for other spells and get the free chance to counter-spell. Granted, you'd use up almost every class feat but you'd need to do that to get counter-spelling to work well. ;)


Ubertron_X wrote:
Also keep in mind that for the most parts counteracting will only be effective for the top or one level below slots and this poses a huge change in game dynamics (not only for WPs), simply because situational but low level spells are a thing of the past (e.g. my level 17 Cleric that I used to play during Kingmaker still always had a level 1 Remove Fear memorized).

Wait, what?

Counteracting wrote:
For spells, 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.

Nowhere in there does it reference spell level. As a level 18 warpriest, Your level 1 remove fear should do just fine removing a magical fear effect from a level 16 monster.

Unless I have been doing counteract checks wrong...


Counteracting wrote:
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.

That looks like it is referencing the opposing effect that you are trying to counter.

So if a level 16 enemy spellcaster casts a level 3 fear spell, you would be trying to counteract against a level 3 spell effect. You as a level 18 warpriest should blow through that with no problems at all. You would need a fail and would have a hard time rolling anything other than crit success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's your counteract check modifier.

Two sentences after the one you quoted:

Quote:
If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level.

So level 1 remove fear has a counteract level of 1. On a critical success it can remove fear effects of level 4 or lower. On a regular success it can remove fear effects of level 2 or lower. On a failure it can remove fear effects of level 0 or lower.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding countacting, I agree. It just isn't bad enough to worry about and there are plenty of support spells that aren't to do with counteracting or where you can just prep it in a slot higher than will generally be used for the spells you want to counteract.
Stuff like poisons and such can be approached via skill feats too if it is a major concern.

breithauptclan wrote:

Wait, what?

Counteracting wrote:
For spells, 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.

Nowhere in there does it reference spell level. As a level 18 warpriest, Your level 1 remove fear should do just fine removing a magical fear effect from a level 16 monster.

Unless I have been doing counteract checks wrong...

You clipped the rules a bit early there

Quote:

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.

Critical Success Counteract the target if its counteract level is no more than 3 levels higher than your effect’s counteract level.

Spell effects are always determined as being the spells level and "your effect's counteract level" is what you compare checks against in the success matrix.

So yes, spell level matters.


Heh. Actually, I think we are all doing it wrong. This:

Counteracting wrote:
When attempting a counteract check, add the relevant skill modifier or other appropriate modifier to your check against the target’s DC.

Looks like what you roll - a religion skill check as a warpriest. Or maybe a skill based on the tradition of the effect you are counteracting.

The rest of this:

Counteracting wrote:
If you’re counteracting an affliction, the DC is in the affliction’s stat block. If it’s a spell, use the caster’s DC. The GM can also calculate a DC based on the target effect’s level. For spells, 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.

Looks like how you calculate the DC that you are rolling against. Though I am not sure why it is using 'your' in the listing for spell. It should be referencing the ability modifiers and proficiency of the caster of the effect.

And this:

Counteracting wrote:
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.

Looks like how you determine the counteract level of the target effect you are trying to dispel.

So with this, your counteract level is still based on your character level and not the spell slot you use to cast the dispel with. Unless the spell you are using says otherwise, of course...


Hmm... Using your character level as your counteract level may be reading too much into it.

It doesn't really say that either. So with nothing else to use to set your counteract level, it would probably use the same wording as you use to set the opposing effect's counteract level. Which is the level of spell you are using.

However, I still think you are making a religion skill check, not a spell proficiency (spell attack) check to do the dispelling. Which is not what I have been running things as. Maybe all of you have been.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

Heh. Actually, I think we are all doing it wrong. This:

Counteracting wrote:
When attempting a counteract check, add the relevant skill modifier or other appropriate modifier to your check against the target’s DC.
Looks like what you roll - a religion skill check as a warpriest. Or maybe a skill based on the tradition of the effect you are counteracting.

That's in the general counteracting rules. Other places in the rules get more specific about how you calculate your counteract check modifier. For example, spells use your casting ability score modifier plus your casting proficiency bonus, as specified on page 305.

Quote:

The rest of this:

Counteracting wrote:
If you’re counteracting an affliction, the DC is in the affliction’s stat block. If it’s a spell, use the caster’s DC. The GM can also calculate a DC based on the target effect’s level. For spells, 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.
Looks like how you calculate the DC that you are rolling against. Though I am not sure why it is using 'your' in the listing for spell. It should be referencing the ability modifiers and proficiency of the caster of the effect.

The paragraph quoted describes two things: the counteract DC, and the counteract modifier. If you're using a spell to counteract something, your check modifier is your casting ability modifier + your casting proficiency bonus + counteract-specific bonuses.

In other words, if I'm a 10th level sorcerer with Cha 20, my counteract modifier is +5 (Cha) +14 (proficiency) = +19. This is the same as my spell attack, but technically a distinct value (should I get a bonus to spell attacks, it won't apply to counteract checks and vice versa).

Quote:

And this:

Counteracting wrote:
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.

Looks like how you determine the counteract level of the target effect you are trying to dispel.

So with this, your counteract level is still based on your character level and not the spell slot you use to cast the dispel with. Unless the spell you are using says otherwise, of course...

Yes, the bit you are quoting tells you how to calculate the counteract level of the thing you are trying to counteract. Let's, for example, say I'm fighting a brain collector. The brain collector has cast paranoia on my friend, and I want to cast dispel magic to get rid of that effect. Paranoia is a 2nd level spell, so the level relevant to my check is 2. The brain collector's spell DC is 26, so that's the DC I use for my counteract check.

It could also be that the brain collector had bitten one of my friends and injected them with venom. In this case, no level is provided for the venom itself, so we use the creature's level 8, halved to 4, for the counteract level.

The other thing to consider is what tool I am using to counteract the effect. This is often the level of the spell I am casting, but it can also be specified by the effect (e.g. if I'm an alchemist using Merciful Elixir, it is determined by the item level of the elixir I'm making). If the counteract level isn't specified, that's when you default to half your level. There are very few instances where this isn't specified (I couldn't find any on a cursory overview).

So, putting all of this together, if I want to counteract the brain collector's paranoia, I would need a success on my counteract check if I did it with a 2nd level dispel magic. A success would also have sufficed on a 1st level dispel, but dispel magic doesn't go lower than 2nd. Were I to cast dispel magic at 3rd level, my success would be all but assured (except on a critical failure).

If I instead want to deal with the venom, I need a 3rd or 4th level neutralize poison to do it on a success, and a 5th level or higher spell to be nearly assured.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
In other words, if I'm a 10th level sorcerer with Cha 20, my counteract modifier is +5 (Cha) +14 (proficiency) = +19. This is the same as my spell attack, but technically a distinct value (should I get a bonus to spell attacks, it won't apply to counteract checks and vice versa).

Yep. While it's rare, there are modifiers to counteract checks, like Elaborate Flourish, Clever Counterspell and Master's Counterspell [all penalties].


Apart from dispelling traps, we haven't had a chance to make a good use of the counteract mechanics.

Our sorcerer ( spontaneous spellcasters have it easy) is always saving one or 2 high slots to cast dispell magic ( as well as the same amount of hero points to reroll if needed), and so does the druid in the other campaign.

The sorc will also probably take shadow siphons.

Disease and curses is something the party tend to deal during long rests, which leaves room for poisons.

Fortunately they mostly affect combatants, which have a generous amount of const as well as nice fortitude saves ( haven't seen one past stage 3 ).

Apart from dealing with traps, what do you use your counteract for?


Does anyone else think that the rules for counteracting are way more complicated than they need to be? No, just me?

Actually, it probably isn't that it is too complicated, the problem is more that the rules are not written very clearly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

Does anyone else think that the rules for counteracting are way more complicated than they need to be? No, just me?

Actually, it probably isn't that it is too complicated, the problem is more that the rules are not written very clearly.

I read them once and decided I didn't want to interact with that system


WWHsmackdown wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

Does anyone else think that the rules for counteracting are way more complicated than they need to be? No, just me?

Actually, it probably isn't that it is too complicated, the problem is more that the rules are not written very clearly.

I read them once and decided I didn't want to interact with that system

I'd more say I read them, did the math in my head and figured out the odds where against me if I specialized in using it AND used my top level spells, let alone try to do so without focusing on it. If it wasn't for things like the mercy line of feats that adds counteracts as a bonus, I most likely wouldn't mess with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dispel magic is, after heal, the most common spell my cleric casts. I do always have one or two in a highest level slot (depending on what our party knows about upcoming encounters) but will some times have one in the second highest slot as well. It is great at debuffing enemy spell casters that cast annoying persistent spells, often from slots that are pretty easy to counter.

Solo higher level bosses are a challenge all around. However, counteract work as against level +1 effects and bosses rarely get a whole lot of those off in an encounter. Using a hero point can often give you a 65 to 70 percent chance of shutting down a very powerful ability and can easily be as much a game changer as anything else a caster is going to pull of in a boss fight. I don’t recommend sleeping on spells that counter act common effects you face in your game.


Unicore wrote:
Dispel magic is, after heal, the most common spell my cleric casts. I do always have one or two in a highest level slot (depending on what our party knows about upcoming encounters) but will some times have one in the second highest slot as well. It is great at debuffing enemy spell casters that cast annoying persistent spells, often from slots that are pretty easy to counter.

The issue I find with that is that you have to know what spells are cast, which means you either have to #1 have it prepared that spell or in your repertoire or #2 take an action to make a Recall Knowledge check. If you're lucky and have the spell ready to cast, you're good: if not you're spending actions and you might do that and find out it's not a spell you can or want to dispel.

Unicore wrote:
However, counteract work as against level +1 effects and bosses rarely get a whole lot of those off in an encounter.

It should be 'counteract CAN work as against level +1 effects on a success': it's by no means guaranteed.

Unicore wrote:
Using a hero point can often give you a 65 to 70 percent chance of shutting down a very powerful ability and can easily be as much a game changer as anything else a caster is going to pull of in a boss fight.

Sure, but hero points and your highest slots individually can be "game changers": here you're talking about blowing both and still having a 35% of doing nothing. That highest slot could cast a buff, like a 6th level heroism, while that hero point could allow a reroll on an affect that stuns you. And again, that assumes that powerful +1 level ability was identified beforehand so you know to dispel magic...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Dispel on a spontaneous caster as a signature spell, it's nice to have in your back pocket when you need it and being able to pick the spell level you want to cast it from when you cast it is nice economically.

On a prepared caster it feels more risky, buffs aren't as common as in PF1 so there's a decent chance you just end up with dead spell slots, which feels really bad if you're preparing high level dispels.


graystone wrote:
The issue I find with that is that you have to know what spells are cast...

I don't think the rules require knowing what you are trying to counter with dispel magic, just that there's a magical effect at all, which the majority of persistent effects have some pretty obvious indicators for their presence.

It could even be as simple as "they cast a spell on themself/their ally and it had no immediately apparent effect" or "they cast a spell on my ally and now they seem to be having difficulty in the fight"

At least, that's me working from memory of it being the Counterspell line of feats that required knowing what you are up against in order to deal with it, not the general counteract rules or dispel magic.


thenobledrake wrote:
graystone wrote:
The issue I find with that is that you have to know what spells are cast...
I don't think the rules require knowing what you are trying to counter with dispel magic, just that there's a magical effect at all, which the majority of persistent effects have some pretty obvious indicators for their presence.

You have to know what spell it is to know if you want to cast a dispel: are you going to toss out your top level slot on what might be a healing spell? On a 1st level true strike? Are you going to target the caster or another creature when you don't know what the spell can do or what it targets?

thenobledrake wrote:
It could even be as simple as "they cast a spell on themself/their ally and it had no immediately apparent effect" or "they cast a spell on my ally and now they seem to be having difficulty in the fight"

Unless the spell has some kind of detectable effect that you can identify, how do you know the target of the spell if it isn't you? Again, "they cast a spell on themself/their ally and it had no immediately apparent effect" can describe a healing spell whch dispel does nothing for., wasting your dispel.

thenobledrake wrote:
At least, that's me working from memory of it being the Counterspell line of feats that required knowing what you are up against in order to deal with it, not the general counteract rules or dispel magic.

You aren't required to know the spell to try: you only need to do so if you don't want to waste your dispel on something you can't affect or don't want to. How can you tell if you don't know what the spell is? Do you want to hear 'congrats, you tried to dispel his message spell to his guard to get reinforcements...'.

As to "they cast a spell on my ally and now they seem to be having difficulty in the fight", sure you can try but I find most time I find it's either on the highly unlikely side or not something I'd want to blow a top level spell on. It's very rare to find a time when it's both worth the slot and allows a decent chance of success. That's not even bringing up what you do when it's allies instead of a single ally as it's single target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also keep in mind that especially in this edition Dispel Magic is the one spell with the most utility, aka the least situational of all spells that rely on counteract mechanics.

By comparison some situational low level divine spells for still common occurances that a WP can be left in the dust with include:

* Remove Fear (2nd)
* Remove Paralysis (2nd)
* Restore Senses (2nd)
* Neutralize Poison (4th)

Situational divine spells that may require a lot of slots/rolls but are mostly used out of combat so the WP may still be fine with:

* Remove Disease (3rd)
* Remove Curse (4th)

On a sidenote the usage of said spells is also the reason why I do not rate Channel Succor a top level class feat for WPs (it probably still is one of the better feats though). While all your spells are automatically hightened to max level you still counteract ~15% worse (if your roll is relevant) and 3 of its 4 applications clearly are out-of-combat condition removal spells that mostly save consistency in case you can't afford at least some downtime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Recognize spell is a very useful skill feat for a caster. Even if you only have 1 of the four tradition skills that you are keeping up with.

Sorcerers are nasty counterspellers, getting counter spell with any list. Dispelling a heal after it has been cast is a waste of a spell, but countering a heal or harm spell can basically counter an enemies entire turn.

My cleric can’t counterspell at all but dispels annoying battle field control spells and self buffs like enlarge or invisibility pretty often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Recognize spell is a very useful skill feat for a caster. Even if you only have 1 of the four tradition skills that you are keeping up with.

Yes, Recognize spell is on my WPs list too, just after Battle Medicine, Assurance (Medicine), Continual Recovery, Ward Medic and Robust Recovery. ;)

Jokes aside please keep in mind that many spells are belonging to multiple traditions, so recognizing them is in my humble opinion not bound to just your own tradition. And while the above mentioned feat selection will only see my character take up Recognize spell at level 10 (could have been 8, Robust Recovery is not very great by itself) I figured that around spell levels 4 or 5 many enemy abilities will finally come online (in form of buffs via spells) and therefore it will be enough if I take up the feat somewhere around that level range, especially as 'safe dispels' will have to be of higher level than the effect itself, so you need to be able to use a higher slot than your enemy. If you can pick it up earlier all the better (just remember Dispel Magic requires character level 5 at least).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dispel magic is a level 2 spell, so you can start dispelling stuff at level 3.

I have found that my cleric doesn't really need to take the whole medicine feat tree, because I almost never run out of heal spells anyway. The rogue in our party took continual recovery and ward medic, and we have a champion so we have our in/out of combat healing pretty well covered. In PF2, you have to walk a fine line of over specializing in one thing past the point that you are getting much out of what you invest in it, AND make sure that you are building in redundancies as a party. Having a cleric be the ultimate heal bot can (not saying it did in your party) create a false sense of security that nobody else needs to be prepared to do in or out of combat healing, which can be bad news when the cleric gets taken out.

We also have a wizard and usually each of us have one or two dispel magic spells ready to go. He is better at identifying magics from occultism and arcana, while my cleric is good with nature and religion. When no one has to carry all the weight of doing a thing, it becomes a lot easier to be good enough at doing that thing, without having to make it your character's only thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
You have to know what spell it is to know if you want to cast a dispel

No, you don't. You could decide you want to try to dispel it just because clearly they want to have it, and you don't want them to have what they want.

graystone wrote:
are you going to toss out your top level slot on what might be a healing spell?

This is exactly why I already brought up the usually pretty obvious indicators of spells, though I see now as I look back I was only talking about the persistent ones and not mentioning that instant effects have them too.

If the GM is ruling that viewers can't tell a difference in a creature's hit points after a spell is cast, that GM is being a problem. HP are visible - not in a granular sense where players are guaranteed to know the number that remain or where the total started, but at the very least in a sense of whether there are more, less, or the same remaining after an action resolves.

So no, no one is going to be throwing a dispel magic spell at what looks like a healing spell, because there's usually nothing there to dispel.

graystone wrote:
On a 1st level true strike? Are you going to target the caster or another creature when you don't know what the spell can do or what it targets?

This seems like you are talking about Counterspell when the spell is being cast, rather than a normal casting of dispel magic after the fact... because true strike already did it's thing and is gone before the question of "should I cast dispel?" comes up, and the target of a spell has already been picked by then too.

But yes, some players are absolutely going to target the magical effect they know their opponent just put into effect even if they don't know what it does - because they can assume "magic effect on my opponent" is a buff for them, and "magic effect put on my ally by my opponent" is a debuff, and say "I don't want them to have that."

Is it possible the player would choose differently if they knew the exact details? Sure, but that doesn't actually mean the player won't be happy to have dispelled "whatever that was." Is it possible that the 'bad guy' could bait a known dispel-caster into wasting their dispel by doing something like casting a buff on one of the caster's allies, or casting a debuff on themself? Sure, but the worst-case scenario there is a unique story (though it does get a bit interfered with by how many beneficial spells require willing targets, since that makes it good odds that if an opponent tosses a spell onto one of your allies, it's a bad thing).

graystone wrote:
Unless the spell has some kind of detectable effect that you can identify, how do you know the target of the spell if it isn't you?

Like I said, most spells actually do have a visible effect. That's why it gets pointed out as a specific thing that some spells don't.

The "no one can tell anything at all about what just happened" you are envisioning is not in line with the way the game talks about spells, especially not the "you can't tell the creature just got healed" part. You are, in effect, creating the problem you are having with this.


thenobledrake wrote:
graystone wrote:
You have to know what spell it is to know if you want to cast a dispel
No, you don't. You could decide you want to try to dispel it just because clearly they want to have it, and you don't want them to have what they want.

If I've bothered to cast Mind Blank I'd really not want to burn a Dispel Magic when the caster is hitting me with a mind affecting spell, else what was the point. Same goes for other spells you may have already cast protections against.


thenobledrake wrote:
HP are visible

PLEASE point out where that is explicitly written out in the core rules. I'd like to see a page number and quote for that. What other spell affects do you suggest are SO obvious that you aren't required to roll for the spell: even ones with obvious sensory clues require that you know and understand what they mean.

thenobledrake wrote:
If the GM is ruling that viewers can't tell a difference in a creature's hit points after a spell is cast, that GM is being a problem.

In seconds, you think you're able to tell if a creature that it regains mental damage taken? Poison damage clearly shown?

Hit Points, Healing, and Dying
Source Core Rulebook pg. 459
"All creatures and objects have Hit Points (HP). Your maximum Hit Point value represents your health, wherewithal, and heroic drive when you are in good health and rested.": so, let me get this straight. You claim that you should ALWAYS, in an instant, be able to assess a creatures "health, wherewithal, and heroic drive" in the middle of combat because it's clearly obvious or your DM is bad?

thenobledrake wrote:
This seems like you are talking about Counterspell when the spell is being cast, rather than a normal casting of dispel magic after the fact... because true strike already did it's thing and is gone before the question of "should I cast dispel?" comes up, and the target of a spell has already been picked by then too.

No, my point is that if you do not ID the spell, you do not even know the spells duration: it could be instant, already done with [like true strike], or it could be one of sever other effects on the creature. Without knowing, you're going in blind: all you know is they did something that looks like casting: you're guessing and hoping if you blindly throw around dispels.

thenobledrake wrote:
But yes, some players are absolutely going to target the magical effect they know their opponent just put into effect even if they don't know what it does - because they can assume "magic effect on my opponent" is a buff for them, and "magic effect put on my ally by my opponent" is a debuff, and say "I don't want them to have that."

That's, IMO, a complete waste of a highest level spell as you generally don't know if a general counteract will have any affect. Now a COUNTERSPELL that works as a reaction will disrupt the spell as it's cast, which would be universally useful but that's not what we've been talking about.

Secondly, HOW do you know that they put a "magical effect" on a particular creature that has a duration? Who got the haste for instance before they attack? How are you telling if the caster or something else is the target of the spell? Are "some players" happy with dispelling magic on a target that doesn't even have any spells on them?

thenobledrake wrote:

Like I said, most spells actually do have a visible effect. That's why it gets pointed out as a specific thing that some spells don't.

The "no one can tell anything at all about what just happened" you are envisioning is not in line with the way the game talks about spells, especially not the "you can't tell the creature just got healed" part. You are, in effect, creating the problem you are having with this.

I know CASTING has obvious sensory clues, but unless a particular spell spells out that it has some kind of effect that you can see, I don't see how you can tell. Secondly, even if they do, you'd still have to ID the spell to know that those clues mean. And again on hp, where does it say you can see another creatures "wherewithal, and heroic drive" in the middle of combat?


I would argue that the following suggests it will be obvious a spell is cast and its target/s, if only during casting.

Quote:
When you Cast a Spell, your spellcasting creates obvious visual manifestations of the gathering magic, although feats such as Conceal Spell (page 210) and Melodious Spell (page 101) can help hide such manifestations or otherwise prevent observers from noticing that you are casting.

It is also important to remember that not everything you want to counteract will be maximum level. A caster may have prepared or cast goblin pox in a level 6 slot, but it is more likely from a level 1 slot. A caster may have cast a level 5 AoE fear... or it was from a level 3 slot because that is where it heightens.

And if it is cinch and you believe you need to prep for it, heropoints exist and can drastically boost odds of success.

A warcaster who specced into medicine has other options for countering a bunch of effects by the time the counteract modifier difference via proficiency would have mattered.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

I would argue that the following suggests it will be obvious a spell is cast and its target/s, if only during casting.

Quote:
When you Cast a Spell, your spellcasting creates obvious visual manifestations of the gathering magic, although feats such as Conceal Spell (page 210) and Melodious Spell (page 101) can help hide such manifestations or otherwise prevent observers from noticing that you are casting.

Sure, I totally agree the CASTING is obvious: I said so in my last post. What's not spelled out is that the TARGET is pointed out in the same obvious fashion. The quoted section just points out what happens "when you Cast a Spell": it never says the target of a spell or the effect of that spell have "obvious visual manifestations" as those are mentioned in individual spells, like Moon Frenzy causing the target to grow vicious fangs and claws.


graystone wrote:
Sure, I totally agree the CASTING is obvious: I said so in my last post. What's not spelled out is that the TARGET is pointed out in the same obvious fashion. The quoted section just points out what happens "when you Cast a Spell": it never says the target of a spell or the effect of that spell have "obvious visual manifestations" as those are mentioned in individual spells, like Moon Frenzy causing the target to grow vicious fangs and claws.

of the gathering magic

I would say this means the target and caster would have obvious visual manifestations when the spell is cast.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
graystone wrote:
Sure, I totally agree the CASTING is obvious: I said so in my last post. What's not spelled out is that the TARGET is pointed out in the same obvious fashion. The quoted section just points out what happens "when you Cast a Spell": it never says the target of a spell or the effect of that spell have "obvious visual manifestations" as those are mentioned in individual spells, like Moon Frenzy causing the target to grow vicious fangs and claws.

of the gathering magic

I would say this means the target and caster would have obvious visual manifestations when the spell is cast.

You are welcome to that interpretation but, IMO, the "gathering magic" is clearly about the "Cast a Spell" action. For instance, it goes out of it's way to mention "feats such as Conceal Spell and Melodious Spell can help hide such manifestations or otherwise prevent observers from noticing that you are casting": note it hides the CASTING only, so if you are saying targets are also clearly visible, then those feats auto fail if you use them to cast a spell on yourself.

Melodious Spell: "This hides only the spell’s spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish."

Conceal Spell: "This ability hides only the spell’s spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air." I'd say that manifestation on the target would be part of the effect as it happens AFTER the casting is finished. The "obvious visual manifestations" are linked to "Cast a Spell" only and not it's effects so why would the target be clearly observable?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PLEASE point out where that is explicitly written out in the core rules. I'd like to see a page number and quote for that.

It's more a "the GM becomes an unreliable narrator if you don't give the players at least a vague indication" than a thing the authors of the game thought "we'd better spell it out explicitly, or people won't realize" kind of thing.

graystone wrote:
so, let me get this straight. You claim that you should ALWAYS, in an instant, be able to assess a creatures "health, wherewithal, and heroic drive" in the middle of combat because it's clearly obvious or your DM is bad?

No, that's not my claim. That's how you've elected to twist my claim. Let me make my actual claim as simple as I can so you don't get it confused for something else again:

Players, through their characters, need to be able to at the very least discern when "HP go down," "HP go up," and "HP didn't change"

And yes, if the GM isn't communicating in some way what is actually happening in the game, especially as it concerns letting their players know basic things like if their actions are having any impact at all, that's a bad GM. It doesn't have to be some special view of the stats, or a specific statement of numbers, but it does have to be something.

Otherwise you're talking about situations in which the player states their character's action, rolls some dice... and has no idea what their character should now be thinking is happening. They attacked with a sword, the player rolled damage... should they keep attacking? Should they run? Is their enemy already dead but the rules don't explicitly state that's a visible condition so the GM has chosen not to mention it?

graystone wrote:
No, my point is that if you do not ID the spell, you do not even know the spells duration

That's not true for a lot of spells. A lingering effect will often have some kind of signs that it's there which a character could pick up on, and the player should be aware of the spell effect persisting so that the game can actually be played.

You are inventing the idea that there's no indicators and then declaring that a thing which the game presents as being an option is not a functional option because there's no indicators. If nothing else, that's applying the Ambiguous Rules advice (core rules p. 443) backwards.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
graystone wrote:
PLEASE point out where that is explicitly written out in the core rules. I'd like to see a page number and quote for that.
It's more a "the GM becomes an unreliable narrator if you don't give the players at least a vague indication" than a thing the authors of the game thought "we'd better spell it out explicitly, or people won't realize" kind of thing.

Similar to how many GMs have their own way of running knowledge checks i've seen a pretty broad spectrum of how most GMs run spell effect feedback

I'd have to say that most of the GMs i've played with definitely lean on the side of very little to no feedback about spell effects.

Personally I like to give lots of feedback/cues/hints for the player about spell effects for many of the reasons noble stated and like it to flow like i'm reading a fantasy novel, but i'm definitely in the minority around here.


thenobledrake wrote:
It's more a "the GM becomes an unreliable narrator if you don't give the players at least a vague indication" than a thing the authors of the game thought "we'd better spell it out explicitly, or people won't realize" kind of thing.

With there being NO guidance on what sensory clues a target has, I can't see how it falls on the DM here. It's quite clear on casting being observable: full stop. Again, if you say the target is also clearly observable, you make Melodious/Conceal Spell useless as it only conceals the casting.

thenobledrake wrote:

No, that's not my claim. That's how you've elected to twist my claim. Let me make my actual claim as simple as I can so you don't get it confused for something else again:

Players, through their characters, need to be able to at the very least discern when "HP go down," "HP go up," and "HP didn't change"

This isn't meaningfully different from "you should ALWAYS, in an instant, be able to assess a creatures "health, wherewithal, and heroic drive" in the middle of combat".

thenobledrake wrote:
And yes, if the GM isn't communicating in some way what is actually happening in the game, especially as it concerns letting their players know basic things like if their actions are having any impact at all, that's a bad GM. It doesn't have to be some special view of the stats, or a specific statement of numbers, but it does have to be something.

Every game has different levels about this: I have one game where the DM will come out and say 'the boss casts Heroism on flunky 1, 2, 3 and 5' and another where we get the bare minimum and BOTH are communicating in a meaningful way. KNOWING without a shadow of a doubt that an unidentified spell that doesn't affect you raised or lower hp isn't, IMO, a failure of communication but a failure to meet YOUR personal expectations.

thenobledrake wrote:
Otherwise you're talking about situations in which the player states their character's action, rolls some dice... and has no idea what their character should now be thinking is happening. They attacked with a sword, the player rolled damage... should they keep attacking? Should they run? Is their enemy already dead but the rules don't explicitly state that's a visible condition so the GM has chosen not to mention it?

Not the situation we're talking about: it'd be closer if it was about knowing if creature #1 hits and damages creature #2 and what the affect that blow did. That is quite different than if YOUR character swung the sword and they noticed the hit did more or less damage that you'd expect.

With unidentified spells, you really have NO expectation to work with. It might deal damage, or heal, or give an instant affect or last all day or... I don't see a creature with 120 hp that currently at 60 is clearly and obviously observably heals be 10 or 20 hp for instance: how exactly does one automatically notice 1/12th it's "wherewithal, and heroic drive" coming back? Do you notice when something gets fast heal of 6 on that 120 hp creature which would be 1/20th it's "wherewithal, and heroic drive", say from a Life Boost.


Gorignak227 wrote:
I'd have to say that most of the GMs i've played with definitely lean on the side of very little to no feedback about spell effects.

I play by post, and I tend to see it leaning towards the DM just telling the spell/results/hp/defenses as it's just easier to track for everyone involved as you can roll your entire turn without having to ask questions. That said, I run into enough DM's that run it 'mysteriously' though that I don't take getting all the info for granted.


I tend to agree with graystone. Technically when spellcasting, observers can only tell that you are casting a spell. They don't get to know who the target is. Nothing mechanically say that it does.

However, we usually run it such that you can tell what the effect of the spell is after it is cast except for spells that are deliberately concealing such as Charm. Which won't help for doing counterspell since you only see the effects after the spell is fully cast.

---------

Speaking of counterspell...

Does Dispel Magic work for counterspell? Both the trigger and requirements text says that you have to have the actual spell being cast ready and castable. I don't see anything in Dispel Magic that overrides that. Dispel Magic explicitly says that you can remove spell effects that are still hanging around. But can you actually use Dispel Magic to counterspell a casting of Heal or Fireball which both have no lasting magical effect to dispel?


breithauptclan wrote:
Does Dispel Magic work for counterspell?

Yes, but only to counteract someone casting Dispel Magic. For anything else, you need the exact spell prepared and/or the spell in your repertoire plus a free slot for it. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Does Dispel Magic work for counterspell?
Yes, but only to counteract someone casting Dispel Magic. For anything else, you need the exact spell prepared and/or the spell in your repertoire plus a free slot for it. ;)

Or a feat that lets you use other spells/slots.


OK.

That is actually not overly intuitive. But I see that the rules are actually written this way.

The way that I was reading the rules during a cursory reading was that you had to have some spell that would, when cast, allow a counteract check against the effects of the spell being cast. So a spell like Spider Sting that deals poison damage could be counterspelled by Remove Poison. And then Dispel Magic would act as a sort of universal counterspell spell.

It would probably be a decent houserule to run with though.


Unicore wrote:
graystone wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Does Dispel Magic work for counterspell?
Yes, but only to counteract someone casting Dispel Magic. For anything else, you need the exact spell prepared and/or the spell in your repertoire plus a free slot for it. ;)
Or a feat that lets you use other spells/slots.

Clever Counterspell would be it for Counterspell specifically and for Dispel Magic it'd need to be an Abjuration spell.

There is Master's Counterspell but it counterspells [lower case c in counterspell] with it's own rules: with it you could counteract with a dispel magic vs anything as a reaction. The downside is you'd still need to have the actual spell prepared and/or the spell in your repertoire, the caster you're trying to counteract must be using a tradition you're master in, the Dispel Magic would have to be at least as high a level as the spell targeted and you get a free -2 to the roll unless the Dm feels Dispel Magic is "especially appropriate" at countering it.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Warpriest and counteract checks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.