| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No you are reading this wrong. The feat allows you to use a spell slot to counteract a spell it's not a feat powered by a spell that will use half of your level.
When you use a thing from a spell slot its the spell slot rank that counts.
We are using a feat to counteract a spell.
This is a completely different situation to Dispell Magic where the counteracting effect is the spell and not the caster.
This is a clear difference to Ring of Counterspells where it clearly states that you use the spells level instead of the items level.
That is a very good argument.
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.
The very literal RAW is that Counterspell costs a spell slot with the correct spell in it to fuel the ability. But then it is the character and the feat that is actually doing the Counteract check - not the spell that was sacrificed.
Not sure if that is balanced or not. It seems strange to counteract a rank 7 Fireball spell with a rank 3 Fireball spell slot.
If a table didn't like the idea, the best way to argue against it is to look at the Trigger line of Counterspell
Trigger A creature Casts a Spell that you have prepared.
and note that the same spell of different rank is considered a different spell. Spontaneous casters have to learn them separately, and prepared casters have to use spell heightening to prepare the different version in a higher spell slot.
The effect of that ruling would be that you would be unable to even attempt to Counterspell a rank 7 Fireball if you only had a rank 8 Fireball spell slot. You would need your own rank exactly 7 Fireball spell slot.
Using the spell slot sacrificed as the counteract level of the Counterspell attempt seems to be a middle-ground.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to make the argument that you should use your characters level and not the level of the expended spell slot for the counteract check.
And Counterspell is a level 1 feat so you could also consider that you always use a counteract level of 1.
You can often read the rules in a weird way but I think in this case the intention is quite clear.
Half the level of the caster is the spell rank. They are the same thing.
If I am a level 5 caster, and I use a level 3 slot to counterspell then if I use my half my level, it's 3. If I use the slot rank, it's 3.
Now, if you were confident enough to use a lover level slot, you'd use its rank, but if it's a max rank spell slot you use, it's always half your level.
You can often read the rules in a weird way but I think in this case the intention is quite clear.
We might put this in the category of 'broken RAW that no one should run the game with', but what RAW is - is pretty clear.
You expend a prepared spell to counter the triggering creature’s casting of that same spell. You lose your spell slot as if you had cast the triggering spell. You then attempt to counteract the triggering spell.
It is very clearly you, the creature, that is doing the counteract. Paying the spell slot is the cost of activating the ability. The spell is not doing the counteract, neither is the feat. You are.
If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level.
Nope, not counteracting with a spell. That would be for casting Dispel Magic.
Otherwise, halve its level and round up to determine its counteract level.
Not sure why the catch-all is here instead of at the end. But we aren't counteracting with an item either.
If an effect’s level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature’s level.
There we are. Counteracting from you, the creature. So no matter what spell level you expend to fuel the feat, the counteract level is half your creature level rounded up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your argument were correct, you could use spell slots other than your highest level slots just as effectively as your highest level slots. Obviously that's too good to be true, and the CRB literally has a side bar about that kind of thing saying essentially "if you think it's too good to be true, it probably is".
I'm aware of that. And if that is what people were saying on this thread, I would probably agree with them.
But instead we get people who are trying to argue that somehow the Counterspell rule doesn't literally say that 'you' are the one doing the counteract. They want to say that the spell that you didn't cast and isn't causing any effect is somehow the effect that is causing the counteract.
Well, I was actually addressing the OP but I guess inadvertently you as well.
I agree with you that literally it says you are counteracting the spell, but it doesn't define exactly how that should work. One could think that it means to as you said that it's half level rounded up. But I think within context of those rules it's not referring to your effort to counteract, but the effect you're trying to counteract.
I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of the OP, I can understand how they got to their reasoning. I'm just 95% certain it's not right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I would question too good to be true.
Counterspell is generally considered pretty bad on its own.
A lot of enemies don't cast spells. Even ones that have magical abilities are often unique abilities rather than standard spells (Graylok Gatebreaker causes slowed, but not by casting Slow). So that means that Counterspell would be completely ineffective against those enemies.
You also can't fuel Counterspell from spellcasting items like scrolls, staves, wands, or even Drain Bonded Item.
So on the rare chance that you fight a creature like Contemplative Meditant that actually casts Slow, but does it as a rank 7 spell - do you really need to penalize the Counterspell ability into ineffectiveness simply because the Wizard only has it prepared in a 3rd rank spell slot?
Well, I was actually addressing the OP but I guess inadvertently you as well.
Yeah, it's all good. I was actually addressing SuperBidi most specifically.
But in general it is good for these discussions to have someone arguing effectively for the various possible readings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your argument were correct, you could use spell slots other than your highest level slots just as effectively as your highest level slots. Obviously that's too good to be true, and the CRB literally has a side bar about that kind of thing saying essentially "if you think it's too good to be true, it probably is".
Is it to good to be true tho?, atm Counterspelling is practically usless with a heavy feat tax and require that you spend even more feats and/or action to even indentify the spell before you can even try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counterspelling is practically usless with a heavy feat tax
Yes.
and require that you spend even more feats and/or action to even indentify the spell before you can even try.
No. You automatically identify spells that you have prepared.
I'm aware of that. And if that is what people were saying on this thread, I would probably agree with them.
But instead we get people who are trying to argue that somehow the Counterspell rule doesn't literally say that 'you' are the one doing the counteract. They want to say that the spell that you didn't cast and isn't causing any effect is somehow the effect that is causing the counteract.
Remove Paralysis: "You can attempt to counteract a single effect imposing the paralyzed condition on the target."
Remove Disease: "You attempt to counteract one disease afflicting the target."Remove Curse: "You attempt to counteract one curse afflicting the target."
So? Are we going to argue on a crazy reading or just apply what seems intended: using the spell level as the level of your counteract attempt.
So? Are we going to argue on a crazy reading or just apply what seems intended: using the spell level as the level of your counteract attempt.
No, you are not going crazy.
But in all of those cases you are actually casting the spell and using the spell's effect as your justification for making a counteract attempt.
With Counterspell you "lose your spell slot as if you cast the spell" but you never actually cast it.
Also, which argument are you making: RAW, or RAI? If making an RAI argument, what is the balance consideration? Simply telling me that my reading is crazy isn't a balance consideration. That would be a RAW argument - but only if my reading is actually incorrect.
If your argument were correct, you could use spell slots other than your highest level slots just as effectively as your highest level slots. Obviously that's too good to be true, and the CRB literally has a side bar about that kind of thing saying essentially "if you think it's too good to be true, it probably is".Is it to good to be true tho?, atm Counterspelling is practically usless with a heavy feat tax and require that you spend even more feats and/or action to even indentify the spell before you can even try.
I agree with you that counterspell is in practice very hard to use, but yes I think it's too good to be true that you can sacrifice a spell slot lower than you maximum level and have that fuel you at a level as though you sacrificed a top level spell. That just doesn't add up.
I agree that it's very feat heavy to do it well, but if you have something like Clever Counterspell now you can counterspell any spell cast with any level spell, if you have it in your spellbook and if it shares a trait. Now you're countering a level 7 Fireball with a level 1 Aqueous Blast.
No, you are not going crazy.
But in all of those cases you are actually casting the spell and using the spell's effect as your justification for making a counteract attempt.
With Counterspell you "lose your spell slot as if you cast the spell" but you never actually cast it.
Also, which argument are you making: RAW, or RAI? If making an RAI argument, what is the balance consideration? Simply telling me that my reading is crazy isn't a balance consideration. That would be a RAW argument - but only if my reading is actually incorrect.
What was crazy was to consider that "you" means that you have to use your own level to determine your counteract level. You is commonly used even when the counteract level is calculated otherwise.
So, let's get back to RAW:
"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."
So, if you are using Counterspell, you can say that the effect is not a spell as Counterspell doesn't specify that you have to use the spell to calculate the counteract level. So you fall into the "otherwise" and the counteract level is 1 as the level of Counterspell is 1. So a strict RAW reading leads to the inability to counterspell anything but first and second level spells.
I think it falls into the "too bad to be true" rule.
So we now have to move to RAI. There are 2 RAI interpretations. Either you consider that the spell used to Counterspell should be used or you consider that Counterspell level is unclear and use the creature level. Both have different impact on balance, but I think one seems more straightforward than the other. But RAI is in the eye of the beholder so you can choose your ruling.
I agree that it's very feat heavy to do it well, but if you have something like Clever Counterspell now you can counterspell any spell cast with any level spell, if you have it in your spellbook and if it shares a trait. Now you're countering a level 7 Fireball with a level 1 Aqueous Blast.
Now that - is a very good counter-argument.
The only thing I am coming up with to respond to that with is that Clever Counterspell is a level 12 feat, so it should be fairly powerful.
But I can't bring myself to recommend that it should be that powerful. Perhaps a hypothetical player or GM at a hypothetical table would, but it is their campaign - they can play it how they decide to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that it's very feat heavy to do it well, but if you have something like Clever Counterspell now you can counterspell any spell cast with any level spell, if you have it in your spellbook and if it shares a trait. Now you're countering a level 7 Fireball with a level 1 Aqueous Blast.Now that - is a very good counter-argument.
The only thing I am coming up with to respond to that with is that Clever Counterspell is a level 12 feat, so it should be fairly powerful.
But I can't bring myself to recommend that it should be that powerful. Perhaps a hypothetical player or GM at a hypothetical table would, but it is their campaign - they can play it how they decide to.
Yeha, like I agree that counterspelling without feats to support it is terrible. No one should bother because you'll never meet the conditions. But if you pick up the feats, you can be incredibly good at it. If you could counterspell at full effectiveness using any spell level with these feats that allow you to expand what spells can be used...I just can't believe such a thing is intended.
Personally I hope they do a rewrite of counterspell rules in the remaster, perhaps the base version of counterspell (that is currently a feat that grants a reaction) is just opening to anyone with spell slots. And other (low level) feats expand which spells can be used to counterspell. LIke I feel that Clever Counterspell should be something that a caster can do around level 8, not 12. But in order to have a good chance at succeeding against the enemy's highest spell level you're also going to need to use your highest level spell. Which makes sense (to me).
It does not strike me as a crazy reading at all, and I think it disingenuous to say otherwise.
I don't know that it is correct, but there's certainly enough wiggle room in the rules' wording that it doesn't come anywhere near crazy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a damned reasonable interpretation.
It would be pretty neat if the elemental spells could be use to counter each other in the Remaster. Use water to counter fire, fire to counter metal, metal to counter wood, wood to counter earth, and earth to counter water.
That would open up Counterspelling a lot more.
I agree that it's very feat heavy to do it well, but if you have something like Clever Counterspell now you can counterspell any spell cast with any level spell, if you have it in your spellbook and if it shares a trait. Now you're countering a level 7 Fireball with a level 1 Aqueous Blast.Now that - is a very good counter-argument.No, not really?
Guys, Clever Counterspell still doesn't say anything about counteractlevelsranks. We are at exactly the same situation as with the base feat, only the range of applicable spells is wider. So either the rank is the expended slot's rank, or it's half your level in both cases.
Another issue: Clever Counterspell only restricted traditions from matching traits. So schools were very much applicable. But now they are gone. The feat becomes worse.
So yes, obviously clever counterspell would have to change because schools of magic don't exist in the remaster. But this isn't specifically about the remaster.
The reason why the point I raise is important for consideration is how big an impact ruling that you use half your character level instead of spell level impacts things if you have a feat like Clever COunterspell. It becomes too potent IMO if you can sacrifice a level 1 water spell to attempt to counter a level 9 fire spell (it would require you to be level 14 and critical succeed on the check but it would be possible).
If you rule that you use half your character level, you would never bother using a spell of a higher level than qualified you to attempt the counteract in the first place.
Let's say you a fire spell focused wizard fighting another fire spell focused wizard. You've both memorized fireball in every slot you can, including heightening the spell.
Does it really seem reasonable that you're better off throwing your lowest level fireballs in response to the enemy's highest level fireballs, and that you've got an equal chance regardless of spell slot expended at overcoming the enemy's spell?
To me it doesn't.
Yes. Because it is a balance argument, it is a ruling that each table is going to have to decide on.
Is it a problem, or is it expected that a level 16 Wizard can fill all of their rank 3 spell slots with Fireball so that they can Counterspell any Fireball spells - of any rank - that an enemy caster throws at the party?
Certainly as a level 16 party, those rank 3 Fireball spells are not likely to be used in an on-level significant-enemy encounter for dealing damage. So the Wizard is spending a low level class feat and a bunch of fairly low level spell slots in order to use Counterspell 3 or 4 times per day. Against just the one spell.
With Clever Counterspell that problem does actually become bigger. Because without Clever Counterspell a spellcasting enemy can at least partially mitigate the problem by casting spells that only exist at the higher ranks. Instead of throwing Fireball at the party, they would throw Eclipse Burst - which couldn't be Counterspelled by anything lower than a rank 7 spell slot. But once we factor in Clever Counterspell, Eclipse Burst could be Counterspelled by a rank 1 Chilling Spray - the Wizard would only need to have Eclipse Burst in their spellbook.
Which is still a balance question that each table has to make. Is it reasonable that a level 12 feat lets you use your low rank non-combat spell slots in combat for the sole purpose of trying to shut down enemy spellcasters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did see Elemental Counter and its wording.
The problem is that, similar to The Exception Proves the Rule, it is hard to tell if the difference in wording is deliberate (meaning that Counterspell should auto-heighten) or if the newer wording for basically the same effect is what was intended in the first place (you should always use the rank of the expended spell slot).