Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lanilifar 02-08-04, 01:59 PM	This is an attempt to make counterspelling more prevalent. All ideas for modification are welcome, but I don't really want to hear that counterspelling is fine as is, because that isn't going to help. Counterspelling When a spellcaster is casting a spell you can choose to attempt to interrupt his casting by directly interferring with the flow of magic around him. You must be able to see the caster, and must be able to see or hear either the verbal or somatic components (therefore the Silent and/or Still Spell feats may be able to foil counterspelling). A spell which takes a free action to cast cannot be countered, it is cast too quickly to stop. This is done as a reaction, which costs a standard action on your next turn, and can only be done once per round. If you are flat-footed, you cannot attempt to counterspell. Counterspelling provokes an attack of opportunity. You can attempt to counterspell any caster within medium range (100’+10’ per caster level). In order to counterspell you must give up a spell slot of your own. You make an opposed counterspell check by rolling 1d20 + spellcraft skill modifer + casting stat modifier. The target of the counterspell can choose to use his Concentration skill instead of his spellcraft skill. This opposed check can have the following modifiers: • You sacrfice the same spell; +10 • You sacrifice a spell that lists itself as a counter to the spell being cast: +10 • You sacrifice a Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic: +5 • You sacrfice a spell of the same school (this is not cumulative with sacrificing the same spell or a spell listed as a counter): +5 • For each higher/lower level spell slot compared to the spell being cast (unmodified by metamgic feats, except Heighten) you sacrifice (this is cumulative with other modifiers): +2 per higher/-2 per lower If multiple people attempt a counterspell on the same target, the counterspeller with the best opposed roll, gains a +2 to their check for each person who reached a 15 or higher on their attempt. Expert Counterspeller [General] You are especially adept at counterspelling. Prerequisites: Ability to cast 3rd level spells Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on the opposed roll when attempting to counterspell. Fast Counterspelling [General] You can counter enemy spells quickly. Prerequisites: Expert Counterspeller, ability to cast 5th level spells Benefit: When you attempt to counterspell an opponent, you no longer lose a standard action on your next turn, instead you lose a move action. You may still only make one counterspell attempt per round. Normal: When you attempt a counterspell, you lose a standard action on your next turn. Long Range Counterspelling [General] You can counterspell enemy spells at great distances. Prerequisites: Expert Counterspeller, ability to cast 5th level spells Benefit: You can attempt to counterspell at Long range (400’ + 40’/caster level). Normal: You can only counterspell within medium range (100’ + 10’/caster level)
Tony Vargas 02-09-04, 02:43 PM	A few more counterspell-related spells: Countercharm (Abjuration) Wiz/Sor0 Components: V,F Casting Time: 1 action Range: Close 25 ft +5/level Target: One Spell or Spell-like ability that allows a saving throw Duration: Inst. Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: None A Countercharm is similar to very weak Dispel Magic or a more active form of Resistance. To be of use, it must be cast as Countermagic, with a Readied Action, against an identified spell. To work, the caster must make a roll of d20+caster level (max +5) vs a DC of 11+CL of the spell being countered. If successful, the Counter-Charm decreases the DC of the target spell by 2. The focus for Countercharm is a black cloth pouch holding copper wire, salt, and herbs, which costs about 13gp to assemble and need only be on the caster's person for the cantrip to be used successfully. Disruption (Evocation) Wiz/Sor0 Components: V,S,F Casting Time: 1 action Range: Close 25 ft +5/level Effect: Ray Duration: Inst. Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes. Disruption produces a pulsing ray that disrupts magical and supernatural energies it touches. When the ray strikes a creature that is casting, using or maintaining a spell or supernatural power (or is, itself an effect therof), it inflicts 1d4 negative energy damage. Note that while ongoing magical effects and the like can be Disrupted, causing them to visibly waver and distort, they are not weakened or dispelled by the momentary effect. The focus for Disruption is an athame (dagger or small knife) made of cold-wrought iron costing 5gp. Negation (Evocation) Wiz/Sor2 Components: V,S Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Medium (100' +10/level) Target or Targets/Effect/Area: Ray Duration: Inst Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: None This spell produces a sickly green ray of magical energy. The ray has a chance of negating any spell or spell-like effect it contacts with a Dispel Check similar to Dispel Magic. A dispel check is 1d20 +1 per caster level (maximum +10) against a DC of 11 + the spell’s caster level. Spells and effects unaffected by Dispel Magic cannot be Negated. If the ray touches an object or creature who is the target of one or more spells, the character makes a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that fails, the character makes dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until the character dispels one spell or fails all the character's checks. If a magic item is touched by the ray, the character makes a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If the check succeeds against a potion or scroll, the item is rendered non-magical. If the check succeeds against a wand, staff or other charged item, the item loses 1d4 charges, and cannot be activated for one round. If the check succeeds against any other item, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for one round, after which the item recovers on its own. If the ray touches an area spell already in place, the character may make a Dispel Check to negate one 5' section of the area. This can be useful in breaching magical Walls, for instance. If the ongoing effect is an emmenation or spread, however, the negated space will fill back in a round later. If the ray strikes a creature casting a spell or activating a spell-like ability, the character may make a Dispel Check to counter the spell or ability. Unlike a regular use of Countermagic, this does not require that the spell be identified by the caster of the Negation. If the ray touches an object or creature who is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning), she makes a dispel check against the spell that conjured the object or creature, but, only the object or creature touched by the ray is actually dispelled, other objects or creatures conjured by the same spell are unaffected. If the ray touches a magical creature (magical beast or any creature with innate supernatural abilities) that is not the effect of an ongoing spell, and is not currently the target of one or more spells, it Negates some of the magic inherent in the creatures existance, inflicting 1d6 of negative energy damage per 2 caster levels (max 5d6). In this specific case, any Spell Resistance the creature possesses must be overcome in order for the damage to be inflicted. Note that Undead not actually created or conjured by spells could actually be healed by this Negation effect. And, a new counterspell-related feat: Counterspell Focus You are especially skilled or talented at foiling the spells of other casters. Pre-Req: Ability to cast Dispel Magic, Spellcraft 8+ ranks Benefits: You gain a +2 bonus to your spellcraft check to identify a spells being cast or in effect. when you have successfully identified a spell, you gain a +2 bonus to your Dispel Check against it. Note, this one is also, good for helping you dispel in-effect spells, and it gives you a reason to use that spellcraft, even when you're just doing a dispel magic.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-09-04, 02:50 PM	Here's what I put together with a friend as alternate counterspelling rules. I don't see these as making the spellcasting classes more powerful; rather, I see these rules as providing a system of checks-and-balances between spellcasters. In point of fact, you may find if you implement these rules that it makes spellcasters in your campaign weaker than they were before. This also has the potential to make the Mastery of Counterspelling ability of the Archmage a more viable choice for High Arcana. Be aware that for the spell to be rebounded as under the effects of Spell Turning, the spell would still need to have had the Archmage specified as a target (so it still wouldn't Turn area-effect spells such as Fireball). Counterspelling is a free action performable once per round that costs an action (either a move or standard action) from your next turn unless you have the Reactive Counterspell feat (see below). In order to perform a counterspell, you must identify the spell being cast (Spellcraft DC 15 + spell level). If successful, you may counterspell by sacrificing an appropriate prepared spell (or slot if you're a Bard/Sorceror): the same spell as the spell you wish to counterspell a spell one level higher from the same spell school as the spell you wish to counterspell a spell three levels higher from a different school than the spell you wish to counterspell one of the dispel spells (Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic) Any dispel attempt (such as using the Dispel spells to counter or dispel a spell or effect) includes the dispeller's and the spell caster's ability modifiers on the dispel check and the opposed dispel check respectively. I.e. You make a dispel check of 1d20 + your caster level + your ability modifier against a DC of 11 + opponent's caster level + opponent's ability modifier. IMPROVED COUNTERSPELL [General] Benefit: You gain a +2 insight bonus on Spellcraft checks to identify an opponent's spell. In addition, you gain a +4 bonus on your check to counter the other spellcaster's attempt if you counterspell with either Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic. Normal: You gain no bonuses to the Spellcraft check or dispel attempt. FOCUSED SPELLCASTING [General] Prerequisite: Improved Counterspelling Benefit: You may choose to increase the casting time of your spell by one full step (free-action >> 1-action >> full-round action >> normal casting time + full round) in order to render your spell immune to counterspelling. This is an action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Normal: A spell may be counterspelled by an opponent. REACTIVE COUNTERSPELL [General] Prerequisite: Improved Counterspelling, spellcaster level 6+ Benefit: Counterspelling no longer costs you an action from your next round, but can still only be attempted once per round. Normal: Counterspelling costs you an action from your next round. RAPID COUNTERSPELL [General] Prerequisite: Improved Counterspelling, Reactive Counterspell, spellcaster level 12+ Benefit: There is no limit to the number of spells you can attempt to counterspell in a single round. Additional counterspell attempts do not cost you any actions from your next round. However, you can still only ever attempt to counterspell a single spell once. Normal: You can only counterspell a single spell per round.
Finarin Panjoro 02-09-04, 02:54 PM	Lanilifar, I applaud anyone who takes the time to try to fix a system they see as broken. Well done. The only problems I see is that this seems to make counterspelling too good of an option. It is so effective that you might very well end up never having anyone cast an effective spell. The biggest problem for PHB counterspelling is that it only works against spells you have prepared. I would recommend the following changes to your system. You lose a standard action when you choose to counterspell rather than a move action. The reason I recommend this is otherwise you tend to have an endless cycle of counterspells with no one ever actually casting. It makes the choice to counterspell to easy. You really don't give anything up to do it. You can only counterspell spells that you know, but you get a +5 bonus on the check if you have the spell prepared or can spontaneously cast it (so a sorceror would be able to counterspell only his known spells, but would always get the +5 bonus to the check). Therefore I would remove the +5 modifier you have for spells you know and replace it with a +5 for a spell you have prepared. It doesn't really make sense that you could identify and counter spells that you don't know. If you don't know it how did you identify it? I would suggest a feat that lets you counter a specific school as a move action rather than a standard action. You can't take this feat in a barred school. I think you might be on to something good here. Feel free to ignore my suggestions if they don't fit with your goals. Hope this helps, -Finarin
Tony Vargas 02-09-04, 03:20 PM	One of the things that makes counterspell a lot less attractive is that you have to commit to it before you know if you're going to need it. Once you've readied a counterspell, the best-case scenario is that you get to cast a spell that fizzles, to make another caster's spell fizzle. Used once in a while, this might carry some dramatic punch, used often, though, it just gets frustrating, as you often waste your action, and when you don't, well, nothing much happens.... One possiblity is to allow counterspells to be done with Delay, rather than Ready - I know, delay sucks even worse than ready, but hear me out. The following would replace bits of the counterspell rules, the rest could stay as is or be further modified: To counterspell, you must be Delaying your action when another caster begins a spell. Once the spell is begun, you may make a spellcraft check to identify it. If you succeed, you can choose to use your standard action to counterspell, and may also take your move action for that round after doing so - your initiative is re-set to just before that of the caster whom you counterspelled. This is an exception to the way Delay normally works. If you fail the roll, or choose not to counter the spell, you continue to Delay. You may wait for another caster, or, you may take some other action, using the normal rules for Delaying. Note that, effectively, whenever a caster Delays, he may have the option of counterspelling. If you want to interrupt a spell without identifying it, you may Ready a Dispel Magic or similar spell (or just an attack) against another caster. ....AND/OR.... Dispelling a single spell as it is being cast: When a Dispell Magic or Greater Dispelling is used against a spell as it is 'forming,' the results are less predictible than when dispelling an in-place spell. The two casters make opposed d20 rolls, using thier respective caster levels. The one casting the Dispel adds the level of his spell to his check. The one who's spell is being dispelled does not, and his roll is used as a target by the dispelling caster. ....AND/OR.... When the full force of a Dispell Magic or Greater Dispelling is unleashed against a single spell as it is 'forming,' the chance of success is greatly enhanced. The dispelling caster gains a +4 circumstance bonus his dispel check. This bonus is increased to +6 if he has successfully identifited the spell using spellcraft. ....AND/OR.... When a spellcaster is targeted by a spell (either directly, or by being in the area of effect of the spell), he can forfiet his next spellcasting action to attempt to counter the spell. He can attempt to identify the spell by observing the caster (normal difficulty) or by noting it's effects as it 'forms' (same difficulty as identifying an in-place spell), if he cannot observe the caster. If the identification attempt fails, and the caster does not attempt a dispel magic, he has taken only a free action, out of turn, and his initiative and next action is not affected. If he goes through with the countermagic attempt, then, on his next initiative, he can perform either a move action, or a standard action that is not spellcasting, but not both - though he can use a quickened or other free-action spell if he has one available. ....AND/OR.... Finally, this could be a feat in a regular game, or an alternative or adjunct to counterspelling rules. In any case, it works the way 1E casters' "saves vs spells" used to work: the caster 'tampers' with the other's magic to save himself. Protective Signs: (variant rule or new feat) An Arcane spellcaster can attempt a spellcraft check to identify a spell cast at him (or cast to include the area he occupies), as a free action, out of standard initiative order. He can do this by observing the caster, or by noting the subtle signs of a spell beginng to manifest upon or around him (same difficulty as identifying an 'in place' spell). If he identifies the spell, and it normally takes a REF or FORT save, he can make specific Protective Signs (genstures) to partially or wholly protect himself from it. Making the signs requires the same physical freedom as casting a spell with somatic components - so, for instance, the arcanist must have a free hand, and check any spell failure percentage for wearing armor. Assuming nothing interferes with them, the Protective Signs allow the caster to substitute his WILL save for the spell's normal REF or FORT save. Visually, the caster stand his ground and makes a few odd hand gestures, while the effects of the spell 'wash' around him.
lanilifar 02-09-04, 08:23 PM	Thanks for the input everybody. HMB: I like your ideas and I think what you have will work fine. I thought of your rapid counterspell feat as well, but I am not fond of giving more than one free action to counterspell. If you ever get to a level that high and play with that feat, I would be interested in how it goes. Counterspelling is a free action performable once per round that costs an action (either a move or standard action) I am not sure I understand this part. What determines whether or not you lose a standard or move action? Finarin: The only problems I see is that this seems to make counterspelling too good of an option. It is so effective that you might very well end up never having anyone cast an effective spell. In a battle with spellcasters on both sides, I agree. That is actually one of my goals. The spellcasters basically negate each other, and when they do get a spell through, it will be more impressive. In my games the PCs can expect to face an enemy caster in about 20% of combat encounters. The other 80% they will still be full on effective. Therefore I don't believe they will feel ineffective (I wouldn't as a caster player). You lose a standard action when you choose to counterspell rather than a move action. That is actually a workable change, IMO. I could even be convinced to go back to requiring a ready action. Losing the action was not my biggest problem. Losing the action on the off chance I had the same spell bothers me a lot more. Which leads me into your next point... You can only counterspell spells that you know, I can't do it. Clerics and Druids would be the best counterspellers with that system (and they already have an advantage over wizards in that they have more spell slots to sac). But see below. It doesn't really make sense that you could identify and counter spells that you don't know. In my mind, you are only nudging the magic the original caster is trying to form in a way to make him lose it into the ether. You don't even need to know what spell he is casting, you just sort of shove him around a bit (figuratively speaking). However if you know the spell he is casting, you know how to shove in the right way (thus the bonus). On the other hand, I could see eliminating the bonus for the spell known and replacing it with a bonus if it is prepared and adding a penalty if it is a spell you don't know, maybe. I would suggest a feat that lets you counter a specific school as a move action rather than a standard action. Too specific for me. If I did switch the next round loss to a standard action instead of a move action, then I would make the feat that speeds up counterspelling applicable to any spell, not just one school. Tony: Those are all good suggestions for modifying the current counterspell rules. Your first suggestion, in my mind, could be a good change to the whole ready action concept. Just throw the ready action out the window, and allow delay to interrupt across the board. That would put a real kink into the dancing archer and dancing caster, which in my mind is a good thing. Really would help meleers out. One of the things that makes counterspell a lot less attractive is that you have to commit to it before you know if you're going to need it. Funny thing is, this didn't really bother me that much. The part of Counterspelling I didn't like was needing to have the same spell prepared (or known in the case of sor/bard).
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-09-04, 11:24 PM	Originally posted by lanilifar I thought of your rapid counterspell feat as well, but I am not fond of giving more than one free action to counterspell. If you ever get to a level that high and play with that feat, I would be interested in how it goes. I actually haven't implemented that feat yet. I'm not sure it will be necessary, in fact. It might make a spellcaster too well able to withstand magical attack, at least for a while. I forsee the wielder of Rapid Counterspell draining his magical reserves at an incredible rate. Originally posted by lanilifar I am not sure I understand this part. What determines whether or not you lose a standard or move action? I had thought to leave it up to the caster; he could either cast a spell next turn or move, but not both. I suppose I might have phrased it as "...costs a move action from your next turn..." The caster would have a standard action remaining to him, which could be turned into a move action if necessary. I wonder, however, if it wouldn't be better to have counterspelling cost a standard action. Otherwise more spellcasting might be going on than an individual could possibly perform in 6 seconds. That would make Reactive Counterspelling more powerful, as that feat would allow you to take a standard action on the next round. I'll certainly let you know how it works out balance-wise when I can playtest this system. If anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free! Just post your findings in this thread so we can all benefit from your experience. :)
Tony Vargas 02-09-04, 11:31 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade The caster would have a standard action remaining to him, which could be turned into a move action if necessary. I wonder, however, if it wouldn't be better to have counterspelling cost a standard action. Otherwise more spellcasting might be going on than an individual could possibly perform in 6 seconds. You might consider using a fragment of one of my random ideas: "If he goes through with the countermagic attempt, then, on his next initiative, he can perform either a move action, or a standard action that is not spellcasting, but not both - though he can use a quickened or other free-action spell if he has one available."
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-09-04, 11:41 PM	That's a good idea, Tony Vargas. I'll implement that. I forget sometimes that spellcasting isn't the only standard action in D&D. :D
Dungeon Master's Pillow 02-10-04, 01:10 AM	My biggest concern here is that it makes combat healing kind of hard. The combat system is currently balanced around the availability of healing spells during comabt, and making those spells fairly easy to counter might make for a significant increase in pc deaths. On the other hand, it might only make the pcs rely more on alternative sources of healing. Also, this totally hoses rangers and paladins, both of whom are unlikely to have invested any points in spellcraft at all. Perhaps there should be some kind of cross-class penalty to the counterspell check. Regardless, I think that this set of rules is quite a bit better than what is currently in the books.
Nom 02-10-04, 01:21 AM	Countering "touch" or "personal" spells is rather difficult, since you have to be in range of the target. And this is going to mean a melee touch attack as well as whatever else you need. And it will provoke an attack of opportunity. So countering combat healing is rather difficult.
wdarkk 02-10-04, 03:06 AM	What I really want is the ability to use counterspelling to alter the spell being cast. Mastery of Counterspelling is nice, but I'd like more options, such as being able to alter spell mode (for say, bestow curse), select any new target, or even keep the spell "stored" as in Symbul's Spell Matrix for later use. (In case you were wondering, my desired options _are_ inspired by MtG counterspells, such as spelljack and misdirection).
Finarin Panjoro 02-10-04, 10:28 AM	I can't do it. Clerics and Druids would be the best counterspellers with that system (and they already have an advantage over wizards in that they have more spell slots to sac). But see below. That's a good point. Personally I feel like wizards and sorcerors should be the best counterspellers since they actually manipulate energy to fit their wishes rather than having spells granted by a diety or spirit with an agenda of their own. Perhaps wizards and sorcerors should be able to counter divine spells by doing "the nudge" you describe, but clerics and druids can only counter spells they know (unless using dispel magic of course). In my mind, you are only nudging the magic the original caster is trying to form in a way to make him lose it into the ether. You don't even need to know what spell he is casting, you just sort of shove him around a bit (figuratively speaking). However if you know the spell he is casting, you know how to shove in the right way (thus the bonus). Interesting take on it. I've always looked at it as two mathmeticians who are writing equations in the air and one inserts a value that makes the equation equal zero. On the other hand, I could see eliminating the bonus for the spell known and replacing it with a bonus if it is prepared and adding a penalty if it is a spell you don't know, maybe. This sounds like a good solution, maybe a +2 bonus for the spell being prepared and a -2 penalty for not knowing it. Nice work.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-10-04, 11:08 AM	Originally posted by Finarin Panjoro Interesting take on it. I've always looked at it as two mathmeticians who are writing equations in the air and one inserts a value that makes the equation equal zero. See, I've always thought of it like sound waves cancelling out. Caster 1 casts a spell, and Caster 2 manipulates his counterspell to "blank out" Caster 1's spell.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-10-04, 11:47 AM	While I do believe counterspelling is normally underpowered, I think this system greatly overpowers it in many ways. However, since your purpose is to get wizards to mostly nullify each other, I think this system works out ok for that, though there are a few flaws. First, I'd change the opposed roll to just 1d20+caster level. The reason being that spellcraft is a skill, and you can get some +10 spellcraft item to make yourself a counterspell master against someone without such an item, and an item like that isn't all that expensive. I generally don't think making must take items is a good idea. Given that spellcraft is needed to ID the spell being cast anyway, I don't think you really need to make it more important. Any counterspell master is going to have it anyway. As for the casting stat, I think that does enough already. We don't need more incentive for wizards to pump intelligence. I guess you could factor it in, but IMO there's really no need. As for the other modifiers, I'd keep the difference in spell level used to counter modifier, but that's it. This is the big modifier you should be stressing and I think you should minimize the other factors to show that this is your main factor. When you include something like spellcraft in the calculations, you reduce a minor modifier like a +4 or -4 to nothing more than statistical noise when comparing it against a +10 spellcraft item. You could also keep the spell known thing, but I'd require that you are using the same spell not simply that you have it in your spell book. Assuming you use a fireball to counter a fireball, it'd be reasonable to grant a +5, but I wouldnt' just give a bonus because you know the spell. Otherwise clerics become very effective at counterspelling each other with their huge spell lists. Any non-domain spell is automatically at a disadvantage to counterspelling. Also, consider the balance side effect that wizards will now use up their spell slots at a much greater rate. As for feats, you should probably have a reflexive counterspell feat which allows you to counterspell while flat footed, or you may want to allow combat reflexes to allow you to do that.
Edymnion 02-10-04, 01:00 PM	I prefer the idea of a Counterspell skill. You want to counter somebody's spell, you make a Counterspell check. The enemy gets an opposed Concentration check. Whoever gets the highest check wins. If its you, your spell fires off normally. If its him, your spell is countered. Simple as that. Only thing I'm not sure of is what ability to tie the Counterspell skill to, as I can really see it being any of the mental abilities. But, I think it should be Charisma, so that Sorcerers and Bards can get a much needed boost.
Tony Vargas 02-10-04, 01:21 PM	Having a single skill - spellcraft - involved is fine, and makes sense, as it is. But, if you want to see counterspelling used more, adding an additional skill will have the opposite effect - especially for Sorcerers, who won't have the Wiz's masive INT mod to skill points. I'd also agree that bringing too many modifiers to the actual dispel check could be problematic - especially if they end up being something, like a skill, for which there are precedents for very large bonuses.
lanilifar 02-10-04, 02:26 PM	and you can get some +10 spellcraft item to make yourself This is a problem I considered. Instead of spellcraft skill modifier, my original version said spellcraft ranks (this also eliminated the double INT bonus for wizards). But then I realized that elimnated feats like Skill Focus, so I added the feats to the modifier chart. Then I realized that the whole purpose of a skill increasing item was that it made you better at that skill, and I could see no reason why someone better at the skill (even through an item) should be punished. It then became apparent to me that skill increase items in my campaigns (as player and DM) are very rare for non-physical skills (rings of jumping not uncommon, headbands of spellcraft or Gather Info OTOH are rare, at least ones that provide more than +2). It became a non-issue for me then, but I do realize that it makes these rules less than universally appealing. My solution for those who do allow skill item bonuses as the core rules suggest, is to change it back to spellcraft ranks and maybe feats only. You could also go with d20+caster level, but I prefer the thought that someone who actually studies what they do (ie spellcraft skill) are better at performing and defending magical feats. Caster Level to me is more of a representation of raw power, whereas spellcraft is a representation of study of the craft (and has a level based factor similiar to caster level, as higher level characters are able to have higher skill checks). My biggest concern here is that it makes combat healing kind of hard. This is true. This could certainly be an issue that may need to be addressed. Most of the characters in my games carry potions, but at higher levels it is nice to have that heal spell. Although I also deal with a lot of clerics who are too busy in combat to do a lot of (if any) healing during the fight. Also, this totally hoses rangers and paladins, Actually, I believe that this system is more likely to have them succeed. Their spell lists are so small that it is very unlikely they would have the right spell in memory in order to be able to counterspell. And although the Paladin gets Dispel Magic, his caster level is so low, that it is highly unlikely it would work (except against a Paldin or Ranger, in which case this alternate system treats them just as equally, and gives them a chance to counter pure casters). What I really want is the ability to use counterspelling to alter the spell being cast. That is a pretty powerful ability, IMO, for D&D. If you like it though, you could make up a feat to use with this system, or develop a PrC (Blue Mage ;)).
lanilifar 02-10-04, 02:39 PM	As for the other modifiers, I'd keep the difference in spell level used to counter modifier, but that's it. That is a possibility (and a good one too). One of the things I did not like about my system was that all the modifers made it a little complex. I figured it was less wordy than the grapple rules and no more complex than AC, but still more complicated than I generally like. I envisioned having a box on the character sheet for counterspelling, like the AC Box. The AC box has space for a bunch of modifiers (Dex, deflection, armor, etc.) and then spaces for when your AC varies (normal, flat-footed, touch). The counterspelling box would be similiar, with spaces for various circumstances so that you don't have to make the calculations during game play (specialty school, spell focus, spell is known, etc.) This alleviated my concern of its complexity somewhat. Eliminating most of the modifiers also removes the complexity (from the get go) but also eliminates some of the realism (ie. I would expect a necromancer to be better at countering a necromantic spell, and have difficulty countering a spell from a barred school). Sometimes though, realism needs to be sacrificed for speed and fun at the game table. I could certainly see taking this suggestion seriously, and eliminating most of the mods. I would be grateful for more input on this subject, especially.
Tony Vargas 02-10-04, 04:50 PM	This wouldn't be any simpler, but... I notice that the various modifiers are all available to both the caster and the counterspeller.... except for one (knowing the spell), a +5 available only to the counterspeller - that certainly helps tilt it in favor of countering... oddly, it also means that divine casters will be a lot better at countering similar divine casters than archanists are likely to be countering eachother. Which is odd, because you'd think it's more an archanist kinda thing. You might consider using a Dispel Check, with a modifier based on the contested spellcraft roll (this is getting back to being similar to the normal system). If the counter-er makes his spellcraft check, he identifies the spell, and if he knows it, get's the +5 (or whatever) to his dispel check... unless the caster can best his spellcraft roll with his own ('protecting' the spell on the fly, as it were). The school and spell level mods could also aply to the Dispel Check. ... A sepparate idea: you could let the caster substitute a Concentration check for the Spellcraft check to keep his spell from being countered. Whatever modifiers would still aply, but it would allow for a character who is good at getting his spells to work, even if he's not good at interfering with others (which might be apropriate for some Sorcerers, for instance).
lanilifar 02-11-04, 01:30 AM	you could let the caster substitute a Concentration check for the Spellcraft check to keep his spell from being countered. One of my fellow gamers suggested this as well. The grapple rules set a precedent by allowing escape artist checks to be used as well as regular grapple checks. I think I like the idea of allowing the either spellcraft or concentration to be used to avoid being counterspelled.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-11-04, 05:00 AM	You know, it's funny... I was just thinking about this a few days ago (how to make counterspelling more useful). Here's my thoughts: - Allow the feats Spell Focus [abjuration], Greater Spell Focus [abjuration], Spell Penetration, and Greater Spell Penetration to apply to dispel checks required by the spells Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic (i.e.- the bonuses would enable the caster to exceed the +10 and +20 level cap, even if the caster level cannot... at best, +16 and +26, respectively). - Improved Counterspelling would be part of the mechanics for counterspelling (you wouldn't need to select this as one of your feats). - Combat Casting (the feat) would apply to all Concentration checks involving spellcasting (not just "on the defensive"), and would enable countering while flat-footed (similar to how Combat Reflexes allows AoO's while flat-footed). - One counterspell per round, as a free action not required to be on your initiative, if you're not flat-footed (counts against your limit of free-action spells, such as Feather Fall and quickened spells). Heightening on-the-fly (i.e.- sorcerers) would not increase the counterspell to a full-round action. - Acceptable free-action counters would include things like Resist Energy [fire] v. an incoming Fireball, or Shield v. an incoming Magic Missile... but not an offensive spell meant to disrupt the caster (and therefore trigger a Concentration check, or a saving throw). - Two new feats: Improved Counterspell [General] (revised) Benefit: When counterspelling, you may use a spell of the same school that is one level less than the target spell (or higher). Furthermore, all your counterspells have a range of short (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) or the spell's listed range, whichever is better. Normal: Without this feat, you may counter a spell only with the same spell, a spell specifically designated as countering the target spell, or a spell of the same school that is one or more levels higher than the target spell. Greater Counterspell [General] Prerequisite: Improved Counterspell (revised) Benefit: As Improved Counterspell, except that you may use a spell of the same school that is three-levels less than the target spell (or higher) when counterspelling. Furthermore, all your counterspells have a range of medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) or the spell's listed range, whichever is better. ~~~ What effects would these changes have? - Spell Focus [abjuration] becomes a viable option. - Gives Spell Penetration a less narrowly-focused application (useful for "all" caster checks, IIRC). - Combat Casting becomes a feat deserving of the name. - Counterspells as free actions makes you think twice before nuking with Quickened offense spells + standard-action offense spells. (If anyone is interested, I could elaborate on my opinion about Quicken.) - Encounters with spellcasters on both sides turn into a spell/counterspell-fest, which not only coincides with fantasy novels, but also gives high-level non-spellcaster types (i.e.- fighers, rogues) the boost they so dearly need. ~~~ Perhaps those two new feats are a tad too good, but it's a start. Also, Combat Casting's +4 to defensive casting might be fine (leave it as it is), but the "counter while flat-footed" is a worthy change, IMO. Comments?
wdarkk 02-11-04, 05:18 AM	Mord's Disjunction already makes SF: Abjuration an option at higher levels, provided you're disjunctioning items you don't care about, such as the entire gear of the 20th level blackguard (what use could you possibly have for an Unholy Avenger? you're not even proficient). That said, this is pretty nifty. I like your ideas, although I fear that Greater Counterspell might be a tad overpowered.
Tony Vargas 02-11-04, 12:36 PM	One thing to keep in mind is that a spell/counterspell sequence, like a thrust/parry/riposte sequence, can be really entertaining when you're reading a well-written book or watching it on the big screen, but, in a game it can be tedious. If counterspelling is effectively a 'free action' (using it doesn't in any way limit your other options that round or the next or whatever), and it's easy, and it's likely to work, you might get a situation where caster duels become a non-event... and, a non event that takes quite a while to resolve. I've seen a variety of game mechanics fall into that trap: they're meant to be dramatic and realistic, but they end up boring. I think it should be possible to make counterspelling a viable, even a frequent tactical choice for casters - but, while still making it a /choice/, not just a given. If it is just a given - like a saving throw - it should, obviously, not have as high a chance of success, as if it were an active option.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-11-04, 01:09 PM	Good point, Tony Vargas. What if we left the Counterspelling rules the way they are, and then added a new feat chain? I know someone suggested that, but I can't remember who. All you'd really need, in fact, is one spell (Improved Counterspell, see below) to make Counterspelling suddenly a viable option. It'll still carry a cost (requires a feat, uses up spell slots much quicker), but not an unduly harsh one. Modified Counterspelling idea In order to perform a counterspell, you must identify the spell being cast (Spellcraft DC 15 + spell level). If successful, you may counterspell by sacrificing an appropriate prepared spell (or slot if you're a Bard/Sorceror). The counterspeller is effectively discharging the energy of his prepared spell in an attempt to disrupt the energy of his opponent’s spell. Appropriate slots are: the same spell as the spell you wish to counterspell a spell one level higher from the same spell school as the spell you wish to counterspell a spell three levels higher from a different school than the spell you wish to counterspell one of the dispel spells (Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic) IMPROVED COUNTERSPELL [General] Benefit: You can make a counterspell attempt once per round as a free action by sacrificing your spellcasting action from your next round. You may still cast a Quickened spell in the next round, as well as attempt another counterspell. Normal: You must ready an action to counterspell an opponent (PHB, p. 170). REACTIVE COUNTERSPELL [General] Prerequisite: Improved Counterspelling, spellcaster level 6+ Benefit: Counterspelling no longer costs you an action from your next round, but can still only be attempted once per round. Normal: Counterspelling costs you an action from your next round. [edit: clarified the rules and the Improved Counterspell feat a little bit]
lanilifar 02-11-04, 02:17 PM	I made changes to the first post based on the other ideas presented here. Changes: Changed the loss of move action in next turn to loss of standard action in next turn. Added the ability to use Concentration skill instead of spellcraft skill by target of counterspell. Changed the modifiers to the opposed roll. Changed the Fast Counterspelling feat. Removed the examples. From the responses on the thread, it seems most people have more of an issue with losing the action, than needing to have the same spell in memory. Krynus: Those are good ideas. I like your base changes, and the feats add nice utility. I may have to scrap my original idea, and move towards where you and Heron and are going. I guess the CL check is probaly better than a skill check, easier for the DM to not let CL get really out of hand (whereas skill boosting items are easier to get). Tony: they're meant to be dramatic and realistic, but they end up boring. I have seen complicated mechanics which make the game boring, but I have never seen great mechanics make the game interesting. The only thing a mechanic can do is to help the game, is work without breaking the moment. A fighter using dodge and combat expertise can be exciting or boring depending on description. I think description would ultimately determine whether or not counterspelling is exciting (as long as the rules are not so complex as to break the moment).
Krynus Ogrebane 02-11-04, 05:53 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas: One thing to keep in mind is that a spell/counterspell sequence, like a thrust/parry/riposte sequence, can be really entertaining when you're reading a well-written book or watching it on the big screen, but, in a game it can be tedious. If counterspelling is effectively a 'free action' (using it doesn't in any way limit your other options that round or the next or whatever), and it's easy, and it's likely to work, you might get a situation where caster duels become a non-event... and, a non event that takes quite a while to resolve. I've seen a variety of game mechanics fall into that trap: they're meant to be dramatic and realistic, but they end up boring. I would tend to agree with lanilifar... description is everything. However, you do have a point about not making it too easy. Besides, what's so tedious about ticking off spell slots? Make a check mark to consume a slot, and describe the event as you imagine it appears. Sooner or later (probably sooner), either a) one of the casters will not have a legal counter, or b) one of the casters' allies will have moved into a position to threaten the opposing caster. Let's examine what we have, and see what we see. Unless using Dispel Magic, or Greater Dispel Magic, an opposed "counterspell check" is risky at best. You now have two chances to screw it up (once for the Spellcraft check to identify, and the counterspell roll). Greater risk of failure does not encourage use. On the flip side, as Archtyrant pointed out, skill-boosting items are relatively cheap, both in terms of money and their impact on a skill modifier. Acquiring a feat for the ability to use higher-level spells to counter a lower-level spell is ridiculous (as PHB Improved Counterspelling does now). This is why I suggested that it should be a default mechanic of counterspelling. Feats should grant some benefit, not cost the caster more to use them. Also, a mechanic that costs you your standard- or move-action from the next round is dubious. When round 2 comes up, you could simply sacrifice round 3's standard-action to counterspell in round 2. Combat Casting is rather lame, as it is written in the PHB. Better to take Skill Focus [concentration]. Boosting CC so that it allows countering while flat-footed is a good start, IMO. Perhaps allowing it to apply to all Concentration checks that involve spellcasting is incongruous, since not all spellcasting takes place in combat. +4 to casting defensive is fine, allowing a caster to counter while flat-footed is fine, but it needs something else (otherwise it is still too narrowly focused, IMO)... maybe this is where the ability to counter should be a free-(?) or move-(?)action (instead of the default mechanics, or instead of actions from future rounds). Spell Focus [abj] has one use, AFAIK (pointed out by wdarkk)... boosting MDJ's save DC. Spell Penetration is a bit more useful (overcoming SR), but you don't really start to encounter these types until later in levels, and certainly not all the time, even then. My versions (above) of Imp.Counter and Grtr.Counter are a bit much, admittedly, but how about something more like this: Combat Casting [General] (revised) Benefit: You get a +4 bonus on Concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability while on the defensive or while you are grappling or pinned. Also, counterspelling is a free-action for you (that counts against your limit of free-action spells, such as Feather Fall or quickened spells). Finally, you may attempt a counterspell while flat-footed. ^^ counterspelling benefits added to the feat ^^ Improved Counterspell [General] (revised) Benefit: When counterspelling, you may use a spell of the same school that is one level less than the target spell (or higher). Normal: Without this feat, you may counter a spell only with the same spell, a spell specifically designated as countering the target spell, or a spell of the same school that is one or more levels higher than the target spell. ^^ "short range" removed ^^ Greater Counterspell [General] Prerequisite: Improved Counterspell (revised) Benefit: As Improved Counterspell, except that you may use a spell of the same school that is two-levels less than the target spell (or higher) when counterspelling. Furthermore, all your counterspells have a range of short (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) or the spell's listed range, whichever is better. ^^ "three-levels less" changed to "two-levels less" ^^ ^^ "medium range" changed to "short range" ^^ ~~~ - Combat Casting becomes desirable. - Improved Counterspell would probably be enough for a sorcerer (because of all those slots). - A wizard may want to consider both Improved and Greater Counterspell (because of all those bonus feats).
X105_Strike 02-12-04, 06:46 PM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane I would tend to agree with lanilifar... description is everything. However, you do have a point about not making it too easy. Besides, what's so tedious about ticking off spell slots? Make a check mark to consume a slot, and describe the event as you imagine it appears. Sooner or later (probably sooner), either a) one of the casters will not have a legal counter, or b) one of the casters' allies will have moved into a position to threaten the opposing caster. Let's examine what we have, and see what we see. Unless using Dispel Magic, or Greater Dispel Magic, an opposed "counterspell check" is risky at best. You now have two chances to screw it up (once for the Spellcraft check to identify, and the counterspell roll). Greater risk of failure does not encourage use. On the flip side, as Archtyrant pointed out, skill-boosting items are relatively cheap, both in terms of money and their impact on a skill modifier. Acquiring a feat for the ability to use higher-level spells to counter a lower-level spell is ridiculous (as PHB Improved Counterspelling does now). This is why I suggested that it should be a default mechanic of counterspelling. Feats should grant some benefit, not cost the caster more to use them. Also, a mechanic that costs you your standard- or move-action from the next round is dubious. When round 2 comes up, you could simply sacrifice round 3's standard-action to counterspell in round 2. Combat Casting is rather lame, as it is written in the PHB. Better to take Skill Focus [concentration]. Boosting CC so that it allows countering while flat-footed is a good start, IMO. Perhaps allowing it to apply to all Concentration checks that involve spellcasting is incongruous, since not all spellcasting takes place in combat. +4 to casting defensive is fine, allowing a caster to counter while flat-footed is fine, but it needs something else (otherwise it is still too narrowly focused, IMO)... maybe this is where the ability to counter should be a free-(?) or move-(?)action (instead of the default mechanics, or instead of actions from future rounds). Spell Focus [abj] has one use, AFAIK (pointed out by wdarkk)... boosting MDJ's save DC. Spell Penetration is a bit more useful (overcoming SR), but you don't really start to encounter these types until later in levels, and certainly not all the time, even then. My versions (above) of Imp.Counter and Grtr.Counter are a bit much, admittedly, but how about something more like this: Combat Casting [General] (revised) Benefit: You get a +4 bonus on Concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability while on the defensive or while you are grappling or pinned. Also, counterspelling is a free-action for you (that counts against your limit of free-action spells, such as Feather Fall or quickened spells). Finally, you may attempt a counterspell while flat-footed. ^^ counterspelling benefits added to the feat ^^ Improved Counterspell [General] (revised) Benefit: When counterspelling, you may use a spell of the same school that is one level less than the target spell (or higher). Normal: Without this feat, you may counter a spell only with the same spell, a spell specifically designated as countering the target spell, or a spell of the same school that is one or more levels higher than the target spell. ^^ "short range" removed ^^ Greater Counterspell [General] Prerequisite: Improved Counterspell (revised) Benefit: As Improved Counterspell, except that you may use a spell of the same school that is two-levels less than the target spell (or higher) when counterspelling. Furthermore, all your counterspells have a range of short (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) or the spell's listed range, whichever is better. ^^ "three-levels less" changed to "two-levels less" ^^ ^^ "medium range" changed to "short range" ^^ ~~~ - Combat Casting becomes desirable. - Improved Counterspell would probably be enough for a sorcerer (because of all those slots). - A wizard may want to consider both Improved and Greater Counterspell (because of all those bonus feats). I like this approach since it builds on existing feats. The new ones suggested above needs testing, and I wouldnt like a spell that counter spells, since it is really not logical [more so with the spells being 0 level] (ie 1 spell counters all spells?? please.. everyone would just get counter spells and nothing else..) A feat is more logical in this regard.
X105_Strike 02-12-04, 06:46 PM	DOuble post..
Tony Vargas 02-17-04, 08:30 PM	Originally posted by lanilifar I think description would ultimately determine whether or not counterspelling is exciting (as long as the rules are not so complex as to break the moment). While a really inspired description could probably make just about anything exciting - like I said, a spell/counterspell sequence might be gripping in a film or novel or Dr. Strange comic or whatever; in a game it might not be. It's not just that the DM's improv description might not be as vibrant as a $2 million CGI scene or a novelist's painstaking wordcraft: RPGs are an interactive medium, the player also needs to feel that his choices in the game are meaningful. If counterspelling works so well that using it is a 'no-brainer' and trying to get spells off when a rival caster is on the field is virtually pointless, then the playe loses that sense that he's contributing to the experience. That's not actually meant as a criticism leveled directly at any of the proposals - just something to keep in mind.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-17-04, 09:37 PM	Yeah, I'd listen to Tony a bit on this one. The danger with making counterspelling too good is that you turn wizard PCs into merely counterspelling stations and little else. There's no point in ever casting a spell because it's going to get countered. So wizard offense basically turns into wand combat, because wand spells can't be countered. It's one reason that I'd say it's probably better to have a separate counterspelling spell that acts as a quickened action as opposed to allowing a spellcaster to counterspell with any spell. This way wizards are forced to choose between counterspelling and not counterspelling, and any wizard isn't automatically fully equipped to counterspell. Another option I might consider is to allow this counterspelling system to work only against spells which target you or one of your allies within 30' or so. That way it would encourage wizards to summon and buff more often in wizard versus wizard duels.
jtgalt 03-28-04, 03:12 PM	I was going over this w/ some of the players in my campaign last night, and we came across one thing that makes counterspelling IMPOSSIBLE w/o taking the FRCS feats for it. You have to READY an action against a specific target in order to counterspell. You just can't ready an action for "an offensive spell to be cast" you have to pick who's going to do the casting. This means that any wizard w/ a +1 glamoured robe that looks like full plate being worn by a wizad who is holding a long sword will basically never be counterspelled because nobody is going to pick him/her/it as the target to counterspell. This also makes it so that anyone who's invisible straight up can't be counterspelled unless someone can see invis.