Counterspell as an Immediate Action [Archive] - Wizards Community

Counterspell as an Immediate Action [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
lord_zack
11-10-07, 06:05 PM I'm considering making a House Rule that allows characters to use dispel magic to counterspell as an immediate action. What do you think?
runestar
11-10-07, 09:13 PM Potentially overpowering, as it then becomes a riskless proposition.
Tordak
11-10-07, 11:23 PM There's a feat in magic of Fearun called 'Reactive Conterspelling'; it gives you that possibility, but you must give up your action on the next turn. I think it's fair, and you should go with those line if you don't want it to be overpowered.
Howie23
11-10-07, 11:50 PM I'm considering making a House Rule that allows characters to use dispel magic to counterspell as an immediate action. What do you think?

Counterspelling is so under-used that investigating improvements is a good thing, I'd say. I'm not sure I'd do it through this route, though, since dispel magic isn't normally an immediate casting time.

Improved counterspelling and other immediate action spells is promising.

Counterspelling full round castings (summons) with summons seems promising.

A faster cast version of dispel as a 4th level spell might make sense (particularly if the version in question doesn't have the flexibility of dispel).
lord_zack
11-11-07, 06:43 PM Potentially overpowering, as it then becomes a riskless proposition.

How? Every spell slot you use on Dispel Magic would be one less you could use for anything else.
MarrowMage
11-11-07, 07:26 PM because normally you have to ready an action, meaning you don't do anything on your turn assuming the enemy caster will cast something you can/will counterspell....if you make the change that you are proposing, now you can cast your spell on your turn AND counter whatever the enemy is going to do, making it that much more powerful
DM-Scott
11-12-07, 01:45 AM Hmmm. Hard to say...true, it means that they wouldn't loose their actions, but in theory another spellcaster could do it just as easily. In addition, as it specifies only dispel magic (an opposed check), it's not sure to work.

Most casters who are going to "counter" a spell will generally do it in a more...direct fashion (that is, "I ready an action when for when he casts a spell" - "Ok, he's casting a spell..." - "I cast Lightning Bolt/Disintegrate/Magic Missle/Finger of Death"), leading to a more direct form of casting disruption (concentration DC 10 + damage dealt, 5d6 lightning bolt average = DC 27; ouch).

I'd say don't drop something like this into a game without some heavy consideration and some play-testing outside your regular game.

Just my two coppers though. :P
wonlee76
11-12-07, 11:43 AM Most casters who are going to "counter" a spell will generally do it in a more...direct fashion (that is, "I ready an action when for when he casts a spell" - "Ok, he's casting a spell..." - "I cast Lightning Bolt/Disintegrate/Magic Missle/Finger of Death"), leading to a more direct form of casting disruption (concentration DC 10 + damage dealt, 5d6 lightning bolt average = DC 27; ouch).

Though I like doing this "version" of counterspelling, its funny how this ends up becoming a stand off situation once the DM starts using the same tactic and presuming the bad guy has some beaters or allies to act as a meatshield. Just two wizards glaring at each other across the battlefield, twitching and waiting for the first one to make a move... Lots of wasted actions but it works.
DM-Scott
11-12-07, 01:05 PM Heheh, it's true. Of course, I suppose if there were immediate counterspells, then it'd turn into a Magic the Gathering situation. For example, let's try this...

Caster A: Casts Cone of Cold.
Caster B: Readied an action to cast Lightning Bolt against caster A.
Caster A: Uses an immediate action to cast Dispel Magic against the lightning bolt. Opposed checks are made to see if the lightning bolt gets off.

In another example...

Caster A readies an action to cast lightning bolt against target X.
Caster B uses his immediate action to cast dispel magic to counter lightning bolt from caster A.
Caster A uses his immediate action to try to dispel caster B's dispel magic.

:P :D
lord_zack
11-12-07, 08:00 PM I'm still not certain it's broken. That's because it's pretty much completely useless now IMO. So if you make it more powerful it's not necessarily broken. I think I'll try it to see if it works.
Essex
11-12-07, 08:40 PM I strongly suspect that counterspelling as an immediate action is overpowered since it is significantly superior to the Reactive Counterspelling feat, which already requires Improved Counterspell and Improved Initiative as prerequisites.

If you really want to try the option then why not give the next major spellcaster the party faces an item that grants the user the ability to reactively counterspell 3/day. After the party kills him and takes the device you can watch how they use it over the next several sessions. If it is as overpowered as I suspect then you can arrange for it to be destroyed in a fight (maybe it is a crystal bauble that is shattered by an enemy spell). If they want to either buy or make a replacement then let them learn that the item was a nonreproducable minor artifact that was discovered in the ruins of a lost city. An expedition to that city will not produce a replacement but will lead to all sorts of other discoveries (perhaps including forgotten tomes that describe the less powerful Reactive Counterspelling feat).
steenan
11-13-07, 09:50 AM I'm using a similar variant (works for any counterspelling, not only with Dispel Magic, but is limited to 1/round and uses up an attack od opportunity) as a houserule in a game I run. It is definitely not overpowered - all it does is help casters defend against other casters, so it evens up on both sides of the battlefield. Anyway, it has some interesting effects on casters' battle tactics:

1. Counterspelling is really used. Before this houserule nearly noone considered it viable, prefering to act now rather than to ready an action.

2. Less typical (even if it means "less powerful" too) spells are used more often, because the opponent is less likely to have the same spell prepared/known to counterspell.

3. Quite often spellcasters (especially if they are similar in profile - for example, two druids or two evokers) cancel eachother, leaving the fight to be fought by melee characters. Which, I think, is nice.

4. Silent and Still Spell feats became more valuable, as they make a spell harder to identify and counter. Improved Counterspell also increased in value, as counterspelling is used more often, so having a right spell to do it is important.

Giving immediate counterspelling ability to a single character would be extremely powerfull. Giving it to all the casters works perfectly good, at least in my game.
Surgo
11-14-07, 06:48 PM I strongly suspect that counterspelling as an immediate action is overpowered since it is significantly superior to the Reactive Counterspelling feat, which already requires Improved Counterspell and Improved Initiative as prerequisites.
The Reactive Counterspell feat is utter trash anyway, so balancing anything against it is going to make that thing look "overpowered".

The house rule sounds good; it might actually make counterspelling not completely useless.
Essex
11-15-07, 11:58 AM The Reactive Counterspell feat is utter trash anyway

In what way?
Surgo
11-17-07, 02:17 PM In the "why the hell would you EVER take this" way, especially when it requires one other feat that doesn't deserve the ink it took to print it (Improved Counterspell) as a prerequisite. Maybe it would be worth it if it didn't have two prerequisites...maybe...

It is widely accepted that the way to counterspell is to ready an action to shoot your opponent in the face when they start casting a spell. Spend the few feats that you actually get on something that will actually be useful instead. Like metamagic.
PhaedrusXY
11-17-07, 02:42 PM Though I like doing this "version" of counterspelling, its funny how this ends up becoming a stand off situation once the DM starts using the same tactic and presuming the bad guy has some beaters or allies to act as a meatshield. Just two wizards glaring at each other across the battlefield, twitching and waiting for the first one to make a move... Lots of wasted actions but it works.That's awesome. Sounds like an Old West style shootout. :D

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lord_zack 11-10-07, 06:05 PM	I'm considering making a House Rule that allows characters to use dispel magic to counterspell as an immediate action. What do you think?
runestar 11-10-07, 09:13 PM	Potentially overpowering, as it then becomes a riskless proposition.
Tordak 11-10-07, 11:23 PM	There's a feat in magic of Fearun called 'Reactive Conterspelling'; it gives you that possibility, but you must give up your action on the next turn. I think it's fair, and you should go with those line if you don't want it to be overpowered.
Howie23 11-10-07, 11:50 PM	I'm considering making a House Rule that allows characters to use dispel magic to counterspell as an immediate action. What do you think? Counterspelling is so under-used that investigating improvements is a good thing, I'd say. I'm not sure I'd do it through this route, though, since dispel magic isn't normally an immediate casting time. Improved counterspelling and other immediate action spells is promising. Counterspelling full round castings (summons) with summons seems promising. A faster cast version of dispel as a 4th level spell might make sense (particularly if the version in question doesn't have the flexibility of dispel).
lord_zack 11-11-07, 06:43 PM	Potentially overpowering, as it then becomes a riskless proposition. How? Every spell slot you use on Dispel Magic would be one less you could use for anything else.
MarrowMage 11-11-07, 07:26 PM	because normally you have to ready an action, meaning you don't do anything on your turn assuming the enemy caster will cast something you can/will counterspell....if you make the change that you are proposing, now you can cast your spell on your turn AND counter whatever the enemy is going to do, making it that much more powerful
DM-Scott 11-12-07, 01:45 AM	Hmmm. Hard to say...true, it means that they wouldn't loose their actions, but in theory another spellcaster could do it just as easily. In addition, as it specifies only dispel magic (an opposed check), it's not sure to work. Most casters who are going to "counter" a spell will generally do it in a more...direct fashion (that is, "I ready an action when for when he casts a spell" - "Ok, he's casting a spell..." - "I cast Lightning Bolt/Disintegrate/Magic Missle/Finger of Death"), leading to a more direct form of casting disruption (concentration DC 10 + damage dealt, 5d6 lightning bolt average = DC 27; ouch). I'd say don't drop something like this into a game without some heavy consideration and some play-testing outside your regular game. Just my two coppers though. :P
wonlee76 11-12-07, 11:43 AM	Most casters who are going to "counter" a spell will generally do it in a more...direct fashion (that is, "I ready an action when for when he casts a spell" - "Ok, he's casting a spell..." - "I cast Lightning Bolt/Disintegrate/Magic Missle/Finger of Death"), leading to a more direct form of casting disruption (concentration DC 10 + damage dealt, 5d6 lightning bolt average = DC 27; ouch). Though I like doing this "version" of counterspelling, its funny how this ends up becoming a stand off situation once the DM starts using the same tactic and presuming the bad guy has some beaters or allies to act as a meatshield. Just two wizards glaring at each other across the battlefield, twitching and waiting for the first one to make a move... Lots of wasted actions but it works.
DM-Scott 11-12-07, 01:05 PM	Heheh, it's true. Of course, I suppose if there were immediate counterspells, then it'd turn into a Magic the Gathering situation. For example, let's try this... Caster A: Casts Cone of Cold. Caster B: Readied an action to cast Lightning Bolt against caster A. Caster A: Uses an immediate action to cast Dispel Magic against the lightning bolt. Opposed checks are made to see if the lightning bolt gets off. In another example... Caster A readies an action to cast lightning bolt against target X. Caster B uses his immediate action to cast dispel magic to counter lightning bolt from caster A. Caster A uses his immediate action to try to dispel caster B's dispel magic. :P :D
lord_zack 11-12-07, 08:00 PM	I'm still not certain it's broken. That's because it's pretty much completely useless now IMO. So if you make it more powerful it's not necessarily broken. I think I'll try it to see if it works.
Essex 11-12-07, 08:40 PM	I strongly suspect that counterspelling as an immediate action is overpowered since it is significantly superior to the Reactive Counterspelling feat, which already requires Improved Counterspell and Improved Initiative as prerequisites. If you really want to try the option then why not give the next major spellcaster the party faces an item that grants the user the ability to reactively counterspell 3/day. After the party kills him and takes the device you can watch how they use it over the next several sessions. If it is as overpowered as I suspect then you can arrange for it to be destroyed in a fight (maybe it is a crystal bauble that is shattered by an enemy spell). If they want to either buy or make a replacement then let them learn that the item was a nonreproducable minor artifact that was discovered in the ruins of a lost city. An expedition to that city will not produce a replacement but will lead to all sorts of other discoveries (perhaps including forgotten tomes that describe the less powerful Reactive Counterspelling feat).
steenan 11-13-07, 09:50 AM	I'm using a similar variant (works for any counterspelling, not only with Dispel Magic, but is limited to 1/round and uses up an attack od opportunity) as a houserule in a game I run. It is definitely not overpowered - all it does is help casters defend against other casters, so it evens up on both sides of the battlefield. Anyway, it has some interesting effects on casters' battle tactics: 1. Counterspelling is really used. Before this houserule nearly noone considered it viable, prefering to act now rather than to ready an action. 2. Less typical (even if it means "less powerful" too) spells are used more often, because the opponent is less likely to have the same spell prepared/known to counterspell. 3. Quite often spellcasters (especially if they are similar in profile - for example, two druids or two evokers) cancel eachother, leaving the fight to be fought by melee characters. Which, I think, is nice. 4. Silent and Still Spell feats became more valuable, as they make a spell harder to identify and counter. Improved Counterspell also increased in value, as counterspelling is used more often, so having a right spell to do it is important. Giving immediate counterspelling ability to a single character would be extremely powerfull. Giving it to all the casters works perfectly good, at least in my game.
Surgo 11-14-07, 06:48 PM	I strongly suspect that counterspelling as an immediate action is overpowered since it is significantly superior to the Reactive Counterspelling feat, which already requires Improved Counterspell and Improved Initiative as prerequisites. The Reactive Counterspell feat is utter trash anyway, so balancing anything against it is going to make that thing look "overpowered". The house rule sounds good; it might actually make counterspelling not completely useless.
Essex 11-15-07, 11:58 AM	The Reactive Counterspell feat is utter trash anyway In what way?
Surgo 11-17-07, 02:17 PM	In the "why the hell would you EVER take this" way, especially when it requires one other feat that doesn't deserve the ink it took to print it (Improved Counterspell) as a prerequisite. Maybe it would be worth it if it didn't have two prerequisites...maybe... It is widely accepted that the way to counterspell is to ready an action to shoot your opponent in the face when they start casting a spell. Spend the few feats that you actually get on something that will actually be useful instead. Like metamagic.
PhaedrusXY 11-17-07, 02:42 PM	Though I like doing this "version" of counterspelling, its funny how this ends up becoming a stand off situation once the DM starts using the same tactic and presuming the bad guy has some beaters or allies to act as a meatshield. Just two wizards glaring at each other across the battlefield, twitching and waiting for the first one to make a move... Lots of wasted actions but it works.That's awesome. Sounds like an Old West style shootout. :D