Hello, So preparing for my upcoming game of Pathfinder, came upon the rule for counterspell. My exposition to this mechanic was actually from Critical Role, they are playing 5e so obviously it's not the same game but I don't understand why pathfinder doesn't change it to somethhing closer to 5e. Having to have the exact same spell in your spell list. There is over 100 lv 1 spell, 135 according to Archive of Nethys to be exact.
What are the odds that my LV1 or 2 Oracle who has access to 2 or 3 level 1 divine spell will be able to conteract? Even if I was level 20 I would have 29 spell, but only 3 of each level except level 10 spell. Counterspell in Pathfinder is basically = to dumb luck or your DM is going out of his way to use spell that you have on your spell list Both sounds insane. Please tell me I am missing something. Personnally I think counterspelling should be something you can do anything to any caster of the same level or lower. Spending a spell slot is already an extremely steep price to pay, I don't think it shoudl be necessary to know the spell and have it prepared.
Also with my oracle I most of my spell are passive healing or and helping my teammate to that means I can never hope to counterspell any magic...So I see an enemy casting fire ball, and hurl it at my ally. and then next turn he does the same thing . I recognize the pattern. But sorry you dont have fireball in your repertoire.
Do you think the rule should be change, if not why? and or do you use a house rule to make it more interesting?
Just wait until your party encounters a Witch that counterspells Heal.
I would also note that Wizard has Clever Counterspell and School Counterspell. Granted, those are fairly high level feats and only available to Wizards.
Generally I like that counterspell isn't such a good option. Shutting down another character's ability to do their normal thing doesn't make for engaging encounters. People complain about that with Swashbuckler a lot when going up against creatures that are immune to precision damage and other things like that. Being able to just press one button and make an enemy non-functional doesn't feel good.
Is there a rules question in there?
Seems like you understand the feat's rules, realized it doesn't work well for your PC, and therefore want it fixed? This might be a better question for the Homebrew section if focused on entertaining alternatives.
Yet rest assured, Oracles don't have Counterspell on their feat list anyway, making it simple to avoid. (If deadset on wanting to, you'll have to take a Dedication, but recognize nobody expects that from your PC.)
As for why counterspelling became a feat limited to select classes and w/ different rules than a different game system w/ different (& IMO subpar) game balance is a question for Paizo, not players. One thing to keep in mind is minion enemy casters and their access to the same rules. So don't alter rules too much to where they can easily shut down the party.
For better or worse, feats are situational & none are required by default to remain competitive. As written the feat works well for certain PCs and/or when regularly facing casters w/ standard spell lists, i.e. fireball. The ability to waste an opponent caster's spell & turn w/ a Reaction (and not Readying) is respectable, so I'm unsure opening it up more would balance well w/ a 1st level feat. Look at the later Counterspell feats which are high level to get an inkling of the power curve. Not that a Dedication wouldn't give an Oracle access to those, but if wanting to play a counterspeller later.
...
As for why counterspelling became a feat limited to select classes and w/ different rules than a different game system w/ different (& IMO subpar) game balance is a question for Paizo, not players...
I am a player at my table not the DM for context.
I have no idea how to ask this question to paizo directly, but I saw in some thread that sometimes mods or other designer joins a discussion. Not sure how rare that happens. A part of me was hoping this might happen. Although I was not holding my breath.
As far as balance is concerned, if the player can do it to the NPC then is it not balance? It's a 2 ways street. Plenty of things players dont enjoy but, I think if both side can do it, then it's an tradeof. I mean sure, its annoying when it happens to you but its so fun when you do it to a villain and save another party member or the entire party from tons of damage.
I was sending a message text to my DM about it and I thought I would check the forum to see what people thought about it.
I think they have taken shortcut to fix issues, and don't trust the DM to be harsh but fair with their players. You don't want the player to suffer or abuse the mechanic of Demoralize on enemies but if you removed the immune (which I think is one of the worst decision Paizo ever made for a rule) then again it's a 2 way street. And also it makes 0 sense story wise that every single time you demoralize and scare someone they are immediately immune to any of your further attempt to scare them. IF there is a Gargantuan Dragon in front of me and I am level 1 and he roars to scare me and succeed, I don't see why I would be immune to further attempt from him.
As far as balance is concerned, if the player can do it to the NPC then is it not balance? It's a 2 ways street. <...> IF there is a Gargantuan Dragon in front of me and I am level 1 and he roars to scare me and succeed, I don't see why I would be immune to further attempt from him.Not all balanced things and plausible things are fun.
Also for Demoralize even immunity is rather plausible. Yes, you really have only one attempt, after failure you aren't considered as seriously. Even if you are a dragon.
I'd assumed the PCs would be the main counterspellers; the gist being that many players want abilities for their PCs that they don't want to see NPCs using against the party. Having their spells easily countered by minions would frustrate most players, much as it'd be awkward if the party could hire lower-level casters simply as counterspellers vs. caster bosses.
And there's also balance of 1st level abilities vs. other 1st level abilities. If tweaking Counterspell, it'd likely have to become a higher level feat. (Which again, isn't an Oracle feat, so I'm not sure why you're so focused on it for your Oracle.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Backing to OP.
Maybe this can be a bit strange for new players but I think that the designers intention is that counterspell should not be a thing to do easier and all time. They probably don't want that an encounter vs magicians should end into a competition of counteracts with each side trying to counteract the other.
The other point is that the rule tries to value the wizard class a little making it's counterspell abilities a bit better with feats like Clever Counterspell and School Counterspell.
So if you want to counteract a spell you should consider to do a wizard instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to use counter spell, you should likely be aiming for the "go to" spells in your repertoire. Heal, fireball, phantom pain, phantasmal killer, dimension door, invisibility... If you look at the bestiary (or NPCs in general) you will see these spells pop up. Those last two are particularly juicy picks because they can be the difference between and enemy escaping to come after you again.
If you're using the most eclectic of non-core spells, you can skip the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counterspell is about what you don't want to face. My Sorcerer keeps Divine Evolution mostly for the ability to Counterspell a 3-action Harm, and he already counterspelled Fireballs to great effects. If it was a general purpose ability usable on every spell then it should be a class feature, not a feat.
|
I don't really know how, but Quench can be used to counter-spell any Fire spell. I guess you can just identify the telltale signs of fire magic and react accordingly?
Yeah, you don't really need to worry about the hundreds of spells in the game, only the dozens of those within the Core Rulebook. It's rare to see a creature or character using non-Core spells. Furthermore, there's about a dozen core spells (many of which were already mentioned above) that are seen over and over again in Paizo material.
I had a sorcerer who would dispell fireballs, magic missiles, and even other dispels. It worked properly and to great effect every four sessions, give or take.
Cordell has the right of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure he meant they Counterspelled Dispel Magic with Dispel Magic so that their buffs wouldn't be dispelled.
In PF1 my ring of counterspells (with Dispel Magic inside) countered a Dispel Magic that was trying to counter my Dispel Magic. Magic (the Gathering) moment.
I'm sure he meant they Counterspelled Dispel Magic with Dispel Magic so that their buffs wouldn't be dispelled.In PF1 my ring of counterspells (with Dispel Magic inside) countered a Dispel Magic that was trying to counter my Dispel Magic. Magic (the Gathering) moment.
LOL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure he meant they Counterspelled Dispel Magic with Dispel Magic so that their buffs wouldn't be dispelled.In PF1 my ring of counterspells (with Dispel Magic inside) countered a Dispel Magic that was trying to counter my Dispel Magic. Magic (the Gathering) moment.
The enemy's Dispel is targeting your spell, not you, so by my reckoning shouldn't have triggered the ring...
*shrug*
|
Do you think the rule should be change, if not why? and or do you use a house rule to make it more interesting?
WotC seems to think it should change. I'm no longer paying attention to one d&d, but I remember them saying monsters and NPCs would have magic effects instead of spells. So you could counter spell fireball, but not "monster does 8d6 fire in a 20foot radius sphere."
Arcane castor duels in 5e are the worst.
I'm sure he meant they Counterspelled Dispel Magic with Dispel Magic so that their buffs wouldn't be dispelled.In PF1 my ring of counterspells (with Dispel Magic inside) countered a Dispel Magic that was trying to counter my Dispel Magic. Magic (the Gathering) moment.The enemy's Dispel is targeting your spell, not you, so by my reckoning shouldn't have triggered the ring...
*shrug*
Eh, it was actually a [floating globe with many eyes]'s dispelling ray, and the GM ruled that it applied. Probably for the fun element.
I can only see 2 tiers:
- Cheap: just getting counterspell for countering those you have prepared or in your repertoire. Remember that for this case you don't need to recognize it. Can complement with reflect spell if wanted and available.
- Full: with the Wizard getting all the feats for free action recognize plus Clever Counterspell to use all your spellbook spells for countering. Add reflect spell of course.
The full version is a dedication by itself, requires much investment but is outstanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly, I now see that Counterspell doesn't work for spells cast by devices. :( Does any spells cast by magical items count as being cast by a device, not a creature? Or is this only for traps?
I think it depends on the item.
Scrolls, Wands, Staves, and other items use Cast a Spell item activation - which in turn uses the same Cast a Spell activity that spellcasters use to cast their spell slots. I would expect those to be close enough to the spellcaster casting the spell that counterspell would work.
Horn of Blasting and Gecko Potion don't use spells that are on a tradition list - they just create custom magical effects. So you wouldn't be able to counterspell those. Similarly, you can't counterspell Kineticist Impulses.
Barkskin Potion is a more gray area.
Because potions don't use Cast a Spell item activation, I probably wouldn't consider it close enough and simply wouldn't let counterspell be a possibility to counteract the magical effects of drinking a potion.
Will the rule for Counterspell be revised in Pathfinder Remaster just as the OP wished? I have not played D&D 5th so I don't know how Counterspell works in that edition though.
By the way, can Paizo use the word Counterspell in Pathfinder Remaster at all? I thought this particular word was created by Wizard of the Coast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will the rule for Counterspell be revised in Pathfinder Remaster just as the OP wished? I have not played D&D 5th so I don't know how Counterspell works in that edition though.
By the way, can Paizo use the word Counterspell in Pathfinder Remaster at all? I thought this particular word was created by Wizard of the Coast.
The word 'counterspell' seems to me to be generic enough that it wouldn't be a problem...
Unless it also duplicated the effects and mechanics of D&D5e's Counterspell.
So I expect that Counterspell may get tweaked a bit, but not significantly. School Counterspell will certainly need to be looked at, but we already know that the Runelord archetype is going to have to wait for a bit. It will get reprinted, but not immediately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My PFS character has Counterspell. From level 1 to 3, in the seven or eight sessions I've had, I've only encountered one enemy spellcaster at all. I don't know if they're rarer in low level PFS or if I just have bad luck picking scenarios to join, but I'm considering retraining the feat if the casters don't get more frequent.
My PFS character has Counterspell. From level 1 to 3, in the seven or eight sessions I've had, I've only encountered one enemy spellcaster at all. I don't know if they're rarer in low level PFS or if I just have bad luck picking scenarios to join, but I'm considering retraining the feat if the casters don't get more frequent.
In my XP, low level PFS is full of melee bruisers and swarms.
My PFS character has Counterspell. From level 1 to 3, in the seven or eight sessions I've had, I've only encountered one enemy spellcaster at all. I don't know if they're rarer in low level PFS or if I just have bad luck picking scenarios to join, but I'm considering retraining the feat if the casters don't get more frequent.In my XP, low level PFS is full of melee bruisers and swarms.
Do the higher level adventures have more spellcasters to counteract, then?
I once proposed using counterspell to counterspell Heal. I was also told that it probably wouldn't work as well as expected. Enemies don't often heal at all, and when they do, they often don't use the Heal spell to do it.
So I suspect you are encountering something similar. Enemies don't always use magic at all. And when they do, they often use different spells than the players use - you can't counterspell the Bonds of Iron "spell" that an Annis Hag has unless you can counterspell based on the 'conjuration' or 'occult' trait and have a permissive GM that will even consider that creature ability to be equivalent in all ways to a spell.
There are creatures that use spells though. Animate Dream casts Fear and Phantasmal Killer - which are both spells that have good reviews as player spell picks on these forums at least. I'm not sure how often those types of creatures show up in a particular adventure though.
Do the higher level adventures have more spellcasters to counteract, then?
You won't use Counterspell very often. But good spells for the players tend to be good spells for the enemies so when it will happen it will in general be rather impactful.
I've personally counterspelled only Fireballs. They are a relatively common sight once you get to mid levels.
I think that counterspell problems all stem from being too close to what it was in PF1, in a system that doesn't work like PF1. In the first edition, the rules were the same for every creatures, be they players, NPC or even random monster encountered along adventuring. Meanwhile, the process is completely decoupled in PF2.
I feel like this caused monsters built for PF1 to have "PC spells" (often in the form of spell like ability) far more often than monsters built for PF2. Looking up monster entries in AoN, it seems that most of the PF2 creatures with spell like ability are direct adaptation from PF1, while the ones introduced in PF2 often use special unique ability instead (that thus simply can't be countered).
It may be confirmation bias tho, I have only checked a handfull of creatures.
I don't understand this at all. PF2 doesn't have 'spell like abilities' or 'special unique abilities'. It has only spells or (non-spell) abilities. You only can Counterspell spells, you can never Counterspell non-spells.
Even Kineticist's Impulses which sometimes count as spells can never be Counterspelled.
Yes, there are some feats/effects/spells which counteract effects fully or partially which could be spells or not, but that's not the topic here.
I misspoke by talking in PF1 terms, I meant "innate spells", not "spell like abilities". Innate spells can still be countered as far as I'm aware, but special monster ability can't. Altho a new glance at AoN showed me a lot of new monster with these innate spells, so my first comment was probably wrong anyway.
Double checking both rules make me think that the reason why people think it's bad may be far simpler : Unlike PF1, dispel magic can't be used as "counterspell slot", so unless you happen to learn in advance what spell your opponent of the day is going to have, it's impossible to prepare for counterspell, it's almost always going to be a coincidence when suddently you face a creature you can counterspell. It's not really possible in these condition to do the old "antimage mage" abjurer that fill a lot of slot with dispell magic and chain counterspell whenever they see a creature that can cast spell.
Add this to the fact that a lot of GM don't automatically tell you when the creature is casting a spell you have sloted and can counter (despite the fact that they should, as you only automatically recognise spell if you have the counterspell feat and have a slot with that spell prepared), it's no wonder counterspelling feel weak. Your GM need to both prepare creature that specifically use the same spells have you, and in the flow of battle to remember which spell they can keep hidden unless recognised, and which spell they have to tell you are being casted. I'm willing to bet that most GM that have a player that pick this feat don't do that, and thus, it feel weak for most player. And when you add the low number of daily slot available to the mix...
No, it should be even better for players: you automatically recognize a spell if you have it prepared or in the repetoire. No feats needed at all, it's a base game rule. Also there's Recognize spell feat and its branch. So basically GM should pause a bit everytime their NPC casts something and check if they need to give players some info or the other. Counterspell is an additional thing.
This is what I meant, you should automatically recognise when an opponent is casting a spell you are able to counterspell using either the basic feat or the "school counterspell" of the runelord dedication. But in practice, as usually GM don't tell the players which spell their monster is casting unless they do a "recognise spell", a lot of GM forget to tell the player when they have an opportunity to counter something, and simply go "monster X is casting a spell, roll a will save".