counterspell w/ shadow spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

counterspell w/ shadow spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Taren
12-05-07, 09:14 PM if you try to counter a fireball using a shadow evocation spell to mimic a fireball does it do anything?
or in order to counterspell I need to use dispel?
Seeker95
12-05-07, 09:44 PM I believe shadow magic will work when used for this counterspelling purpose.
Shadow conjuration can mimic any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 3rd level or lower.(With similar references in shadow evocation and the Greater versions of each of these.)

Mimic a fireball to counter a fireball. 36 more reasons to take these two spells!
ArcTan
12-05-07, 10:09 PM I'd say probably yes. But you'd have to identify the spell correctly with Spellcraft, unlike if you were counterspelling with dispel magic.

Interestingly, this means wish and limited wish are a viable, if costly, last-ditch option for counterspelling.
groveborn
12-05-07, 10:23 PM I'd say no.

Here's why. When you cast a counter spell, you're changing the way the spell is cast in such a way that it negates the other spell. You may counter any other shadow spell, but never the real thing. Also, the shadow spells are only 20% real, and never do full damage to objects. That means that if you were allowed to use it as a counter spell vs. the real thing, it'd fail 80% of the time.
yrogerg
12-05-07, 11:19 PM I'd say no.

Here's why. When you cast a counter spell, you're changing the way the spell is cast in such a way that it negates the other spell. You may counter any other shadow spell, but never the real thing.
How does b) follow from a), though? The caster is allowed to control the parameters of the spell in all other ways as though it's the actual spell. Not allowing it to counterspell seems... arbitrary. And not really derived from the rules.
Also, the shadow spells are only 20% real, and never do full damage to objects. That means that if you were allowed to use it as a counter spell vs. the real thing, it'd fail 80% of the time.

IMO, this is more of a reason to *let* players try this trick than it is a reason not to. It's not especially powerful, and you're burning a 4th level spell to have a fairly low chance of counterspelling one particular school. Dispel Magic is lower-level, likely works more often, even with Caster Level checks, and works against all schools of magic.
ArcTan
12-06-07, 01:16 AM Enh. I can see the logic in either direction but, to be honest, I'd rather err on the side of making counterspelling more attractive than not.

But sure, I can see the argument that since a shadow fireball is different in many important ways from a real fireball, you might not be able to counterspell with it. (Notice that all the logic of how well shadow spells work against objects is irrelevant -- the point of counterspelling is that neither spell actually gets *cast*, because the counterspell somehow matches and negates the action of the spell before it happens.)
Firebug2006
12-06-07, 03:31 AM Well in my opinion it would really matter how the shadow spell is worded.

Is it mimicking the fireball spell or is it actually casting the fireball spell?

Basically is it a spell that can have the same "stat" effect of another spell or is it allowing you to actually cast the spell in question, with some limits (will save in addition to any normal save, etc).
ArcTan
12-06-07, 03:56 AM Well, it's not the same spell, which is why I'm saying I understand the viewpoint that you can't counterspell this way.
groveborn
12-06-07, 06:06 AM I really can't see how it CAN be used as a counterspell against normal versions.

You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower. (For a spell with more than one level, use the best one applicable to you.)

Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless an affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur. If recognized as a shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only one-fifth (20%) damage. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save (or spell resistance) that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow evocation's level (5th) rather than the spell's normal level.

Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect.

Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell.

To complete the action, you must then cast the correct spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.

The bolded sections are the ones I'd pay close attention to in making such a ruling. This indicates that a subject is allowed a will save to disbelieve your counter spell. I wouldn't call it concrete, but it's pretty close.

Also, note the first line. It doesn't say anything at all about it being exactly like the mimicked spell. I'd say the rules do not really support allowing a counter spell of any type other than a shadow evocation spell.

Summation: The "quasi-real illusionary version" quite clearly tells me it cannot work. The reason is in the counterspell line where it sates that only the same spell can counter itself. You're casting Shadow Evocation, not Fireball. The effect is unimportant for counterspells.
Seeker95
12-06-07, 08:25 AM The bolded sections are the ones I'd pay close attention to in making such a ruling.I believe your bolded section supports the opposite conclusion.As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself.By explicitly noting that this is a general rule, the designers are implying that there are specific rules that will be exceptions to this. If it simply were "the rule" it would simply say:
a spell can only counter itself
There are exceptions to this "general rule":
Dispel magic
[light] v [darkness] spells
slow and haste

It is my opinion that this list includes the following:
wish and limited wish
shadow conjuration and evocation

Spells that mimic other spells will also do so as counters, in my opinion.
groveborn
12-06-07, 05:27 PM I believe your bolded section supports the opposite conclusion.By explicitly noting that this is a general rule, the designers are implying that there are specific rules that will be exceptions to this. If it simply were "the rule" it would simply say:

There are exceptions to this "general rule":
Dispel magic
[light] v [darkness] spells
slow and haste

It is my opinion that this list includes the following:
wish and limited wish
shadow conjuration and evocation

Spells that mimic other spells will also do so as counters, in my opinion.

It seems to me that your arguement is flawed in that the exceptions are said to be exceptions. That is not the case in this line of spells. They do not replicate the spells, they mimic them. They are not the same spell. When you cast Wish and that line, it actually casts the original spell. Shadow Blank doesn't. If it did, it'd be conspicuous, and explicit.
Seeker95
12-06-07, 06:48 PM When you cast Wish and that line, it actually casts the original spell.No it doesn't. It "duplicates" the existing spell. The spell being cast is still wish. You're hinging your entire objection on the difference between the words "mimic" and "duplicate".

That's okay. We don't have to agree.
groveborn
12-07-07, 03:40 AM No it doesn't. It "duplicates" the existing spell. The spell being cast is still wish. You're hinging your entire objection on the difference between the words "mimic" and "duplicate".

That's okay. We don't have to agree.

Perhaps you have a point on wish, except that you must provide expensive components and XP for those duplicated spells. That's not the cast with the Shadow X line of spells.

Duplicate:
# make or do or perform again; "He could never replicate his brilliant performance of the magic trick"
# twin: duplicate or match; "The polished surface twinned his face and chest in reverse"
# extra: something additional of the same kind; "he always carried extras in case of an emergency"
# make a duplicate or duplicates of; "Could you please duplicate this letter for me?"
# identically copied from an original; "a duplicate key"
# double: increase twofold; "The population doubled within 50 years"
# being two identical
# a copy that corresponds to an original exactly; "he made a duplicate for the files"

Mimic:
# someone who mimics (especially an actor or actress)
# imitate (a person or manner), especially for satirical effect; "The actor mimicked the President very accurately"
# constituting an imitation; "the mimic warfare of the opera stage"- Archibald Alison

It seems to me that those are very differing words. Perhaps you need to read more dictionaries? :)

At any point, Shadow X cannot counterspell anything but the other Shadow X spells of the same type, unless it mimics a spell that NORMALLY counteracts another spell. Wish may or may not, DM's call, I'd say sure, since you could just wish that spell were countered.
Seeker95
12-07-07, 08:40 AM It seems to me that those are very differing words.It seems to me you are having some difficulty accepting that we simply disagree.

At any point [in groveborn's game], Shadow X cannot counterspell anything but the other Shadow X spells of the same type [in groveborn's game], unless it mimics a spell that NORMALLY counteracts another spell.Just clarifying for those who might be mistaking your houserule for "the rules".
ArcTan
12-07-07, 02:39 PM I've come around to the POV that groveborn's ruling is the rules, actually, and that allowing it to work is a houserule. Shadow conjuration is pretty clearly not identical to the spell it "mimics" in any way (there's no way you can use it that makes the spell actually work exactly the same, from the target's perspective, as the original spell), while the point of wish and limited wish and anyspell is that they are.
groveborn
12-07-07, 02:44 PM I knew somebody would come around :).
Taren
12-07-07, 05:42 PM I've come around to the POV that groveborn's ruling is the rules, actually, and that allowing it to work is a houserule. Shadow conjuration is pretty clearly not identical to the spell it "mimics" in any way (there's no way you can use it that makes the spell actually work exactly the same, from the target's perspective, as the original spell), while the point of wish and limited wish and anyspell is that they are.
it all depends on where you as a group decide the magic of the spell is countered, since mastery of counterspell turns the spell back on its caster the effect implies that the magic is countered after it is cast.
if I imitate a fireball...why can't I imitate a counterfireball?
seems everyone is looking at it like its an object then weighing it and measuring it and saying "nope it ain't exactly the same therefore is so far out of the league that it cannot under any circumstances be considered the normal.
Dheran
12-07-07, 08:46 PM I don't understand what the big disagreement is about here. Here's what I think should work:
The shadow caster makes their Spellcraft check, and tries to counterspell with a shadow spell.
This shadow spell interacts with the original magic, and the enemy caster has a chance to disbelieve.
If they disbelieve, the shadow magic only has a 20% chance of succeeding.
ArcTan
12-07-07, 09:14 PM Counterspelling isn't supposed to work that way. No other form of counterspelling gives a save like that. It either works or it doesn't, and if it works, it means neither spell was ever cast at all. In the case of the Archmage's Mastery of Counterspelling, the *original* spell gets cast but the Archmage's spell *doesn't* (it has the save DC and caster level associated with the original caster, not the Archmage).

If shadow conjuration can only be checked for "real"-ness with a Will save after the spell is cast, then logically it can't be "real" for the sake of counterspelling, which takes place before the spell is cast.
yrogerg
12-07-07, 09:15 PM I don't understand what the big disagreement is about here. Here's what I think should work:
The shadow caster makes their Spellcraft check, and tries to counterspell with a shadow spell.
This shadow spell interacts with the original magic, and the enemy caster has a chance to disbelieve.
If they disbelieve, the shadow magic only has a 20% chance of succeeding.

Note, as I pointed out earlier, that this tactic is considerably less efficient -and potentially less effective- than just using Dispel Magic.

I don't actually think you need to make a Will to disbelieve, though. It's like the spell's interacting with an object, really.
Seeker95
12-07-07, 11:19 PM It [counterspelling] either works or it doesn't, and if it works, it means neither spell was ever cast at all.I'm just trying to gain clarification here. Are you saying that if a caster has his spell counterspelled, neither spell happened? They still have the spell? It doesn't get used up?

Or do you just mean the original spell had no effect, and the counterspell was used up to accomplish that?
ArcTan
12-08-07, 12:00 AM The original spell was cast but nothing happened, as was the counterspell. It's the same as casting a targeted spell on an invalid target -- the spell is used up with no physical effect.
groveborn
12-08-07, 04:46 AM My understanding of counterspells is that you take the original spell, and tweak something in it to make a kind of anti-that-spell. like an antimagic field just for that spell, for that very short time. It just cancels it out. It happens at the completion of the original spell, at which point the counterspell takes over.

It's always a standard action, so I'd say it takes 3 seconds or so :). Nah, let's say 4.
Seeker95
12-08-07, 11:03 AM The original spell was cast but nothing happened, as was the counterspell.Thanks. :tiphat:
Taren
12-09-07, 12:33 AM My understanding of counterspells is that you take the original spell, and tweak something in it to make a kind of anti-that-spell.

except when you use improved counterspelling...then you can use Summon Monster IV to counterspell Sepia Snake Sigil, or Melf's Acid Arrow to counter Obscuring mist....

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Taren 12-05-07, 09:14 PM	if you try to counter a fireball using a shadow evocation spell to mimic a fireball does it do anything? or in order to counterspell I need to use dispel?
Seeker95 12-05-07, 09:44 PM	I believe shadow magic will work when used for this counterspelling purpose. Shadow conjuration can mimic any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 3rd level or lower.(With similar references in shadow evocation and the Greater versions of each of these.) Mimic a fireball to counter a fireball. 36 more reasons to take these two spells!
ArcTan 12-05-07, 10:09 PM	I'd say probably yes. But you'd have to identify the spell correctly with Spellcraft, unlike if you were counterspelling with dispel magic. Interestingly, this means wish and limited wish are a viable, if costly, last-ditch option for counterspelling.
groveborn 12-05-07, 10:23 PM	I'd say no. Here's why. When you cast a counter spell, you're changing the way the spell is cast in such a way that it negates the other spell. You may counter any other shadow spell, but never the real thing. Also, the shadow spells are only 20% real, and never do full damage to objects. That means that if you were allowed to use it as a counter spell vs. the real thing, it'd fail 80% of the time.
yrogerg 12-05-07, 11:19 PM	I'd say no. Here's why. When you cast a counter spell, you're changing the way the spell is cast in such a way that it negates the other spell. You may counter any other shadow spell, but never the real thing. How does b) follow from a), though? The caster is allowed to control the parameters of the spell in all other ways as though it's the actual spell. Not allowing it to counterspell seems... arbitrary. And not really derived from the rules. Also, the shadow spells are only 20% real, and never do full damage to objects. That means that if you were allowed to use it as a counter spell vs. the real thing, it'd fail 80% of the time. IMO, this is more of a reason to let players try this trick than it is a reason not to. It's not especially powerful, and you're burning a 4th level spell to have a fairly low chance of counterspelling one particular school. Dispel Magic is lower-level, likely works more often, even with Caster Level checks, and works against all schools of magic.
ArcTan 12-06-07, 01:16 AM	Enh. I can see the logic in either direction but, to be honest, I'd rather err on the side of making counterspelling more attractive than not. But sure, I can see the argument that since a shadow fireball is different in many important ways from a real fireball, you might not be able to counterspell with it. (Notice that all the logic of how well shadow spells work against objects is irrelevant -- the point of counterspelling is that neither spell actually gets cast, because the counterspell somehow matches and negates the action of the spell before it happens.)
Firebug2006 12-06-07, 03:31 AM	Well in my opinion it would really matter how the shadow spell is worded. Is it mimicking the fireball spell or is it actually casting the fireball spell? Basically is it a spell that can have the same "stat" effect of another spell or is it allowing you to actually cast the spell in question, with some limits (will save in addition to any normal save, etc).
ArcTan 12-06-07, 03:56 AM	Well, it's not the same spell, which is why I'm saying I understand the viewpoint that you can't counterspell this way.
groveborn 12-06-07, 06:06 AM	I really can't see how it CAN be used as a counterspell against normal versions. You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower. (For a spell with more than one level, use the best one applicable to you.) Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless an affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur. If recognized as a shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only one-fifth (20%) damage. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save (or spell resistance) that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow evocation's level (5th) rather than the spell's normal level. Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect. Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell. To complete the action, you must then cast the correct spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results. The bolded sections are the ones I'd pay close attention to in making such a ruling. This indicates that a subject is allowed a will save to disbelieve your counter spell. I wouldn't call it concrete, but it's pretty close. Also, note the first line. It doesn't say anything at all about it being exactly like the mimicked spell. I'd say the rules do not really support allowing a counter spell of any type other than a shadow evocation spell. Summation: The "quasi-real illusionary version" quite clearly tells me it cannot work. The reason is in the counterspell line where it sates that only the same spell can counter itself. You're casting Shadow Evocation, not Fireball. The effect is unimportant for counterspells.
Seeker95 12-06-07, 08:25 AM	The bolded sections are the ones I'd pay close attention to in making such a ruling.I believe your bolded section supports the opposite conclusion.As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself.By explicitly noting that this is a general rule, the designers are implying that there are specific rules that will be exceptions to this. If it simply were "the rule" it would simply say: a spell can only counter itself There are exceptions to this "general rule": Dispel magic [light] v [darkness] spells slow and haste It is my opinion that this list includes the following: wish and limited wish shadow conjuration and evocation Spells that mimic other spells will also do so as counters, in my opinion.
groveborn 12-06-07, 05:27 PM	I believe your bolded section supports the opposite conclusion.By explicitly noting that this is a general rule, the designers are implying that there are specific rules that will be exceptions to this. If it simply were "the rule" it would simply say: There are exceptions to this "general rule": Dispel magic [light] v [darkness] spells slow and haste It is my opinion that this list includes the following: wish and limited wish shadow conjuration and evocation Spells that mimic other spells will also do so as counters, in my opinion. It seems to me that your arguement is flawed in that the exceptions are said to be exceptions. That is not the case in this line of spells. They do not replicate the spells, they mimic them. They are not the same spell. When you cast Wish and that line, it actually casts the original spell. Shadow Blank doesn't. If it did, it'd be conspicuous, and explicit.
Seeker95 12-06-07, 06:48 PM	When you cast Wish and that line, it actually casts the original spell.No it doesn't. It "duplicates" the existing spell. The spell being cast is still wish. You're hinging your entire objection on the difference between the words "mimic" and "duplicate". That's okay. We don't have to agree.
groveborn 12-07-07, 03:40 AM	No it doesn't. It "duplicates" the existing spell. The spell being cast is still wish. You're hinging your entire objection on the difference between the words "mimic" and "duplicate". That's okay. We don't have to agree. Perhaps you have a point on wish, except that you must provide expensive components and XP for those duplicated spells. That's not the cast with the Shadow X line of spells. Duplicate: # make or do or perform again; "He could never replicate his brilliant performance of the magic trick" # twin: duplicate or match; "The polished surface twinned his face and chest in reverse" # extra: something additional of the same kind; "he always carried extras in case of an emergency" # make a duplicate or duplicates of; "Could you please duplicate this letter for me?" # identically copied from an original; "a duplicate key" # double: increase twofold; "The population doubled within 50 years" # being two identical # a copy that corresponds to an original exactly; "he made a duplicate for the files" Mimic: # someone who mimics (especially an actor or actress) # imitate (a person or manner), especially for satirical effect; "The actor mimicked the President very accurately" # constituting an imitation; "the mimic warfare of the opera stage"- Archibald Alison It seems to me that those are very differing words. Perhaps you need to read more dictionaries? :) At any point, Shadow X cannot counterspell anything but the other Shadow X spells of the same type, unless it mimics a spell that NORMALLY counteracts another spell. Wish may or may not, DM's call, I'd say sure, since you could just wish that spell were countered.
Seeker95 12-07-07, 08:40 AM	It seems to me that those are very differing words.It seems to me you are having some difficulty accepting that we simply disagree. At any point [in groveborn's game], Shadow X cannot counterspell anything but the other Shadow X spells of the same type [in groveborn's game], unless it mimics a spell that NORMALLY counteracts another spell.Just clarifying for those who might be mistaking your houserule for "the rules".
ArcTan 12-07-07, 02:39 PM	I've come around to the POV that groveborn's ruling is the rules, actually, and that allowing it to work is a houserule. Shadow conjuration is pretty clearly not identical to the spell it "mimics" in any way (there's no way you can use it that makes the spell actually work exactly the same, from the target's perspective, as the original spell), while the point of wish and limited wish and anyspell is that they are.
groveborn 12-07-07, 02:44 PM	I knew somebody would come around :).
Taren 12-07-07, 05:42 PM	I've come around to the POV that groveborn's ruling is the rules, actually, and that allowing it to work is a houserule. Shadow conjuration is pretty clearly not identical to the spell it "mimics" in any way (there's no way you can use it that makes the spell actually work exactly the same, from the target's perspective, as the original spell), while the point of wish and limited wish and anyspell is that they are. it all depends on where you as a group decide the magic of the spell is countered, since mastery of counterspell turns the spell back on its caster the effect implies that the magic is countered after it is cast. if I imitate a fireball...why can't I imitate a counterfireball? seems everyone is looking at it like its an object then weighing it and measuring it and saying "nope it ain't exactly the same therefore is so far out of the league that it cannot under any circumstances be considered the normal.
Dheran 12-07-07, 08:46 PM	I don't understand what the big disagreement is about here. Here's what I think should work: The shadow caster makes their Spellcraft check, and tries to counterspell with a shadow spell. This shadow spell interacts with the original magic, and the enemy caster has a chance to disbelieve. If they disbelieve, the shadow magic only has a 20% chance of succeeding.
ArcTan 12-07-07, 09:14 PM	Counterspelling isn't supposed to work that way. No other form of counterspelling gives a save like that. It either works or it doesn't, and if it works, it means neither spell was ever cast at all. In the case of the Archmage's Mastery of Counterspelling, the original spell gets cast but the Archmage's spell doesn't (it has the save DC and caster level associated with the original caster, not the Archmage). If shadow conjuration can only be checked for "real"-ness with a Will save after the spell is cast, then logically it can't be "real" for the sake of counterspelling, which takes place before the spell is cast.
yrogerg 12-07-07, 09:15 PM	I don't understand what the big disagreement is about here. Here's what I think should work: The shadow caster makes their Spellcraft check, and tries to counterspell with a shadow spell. This shadow spell interacts with the original magic, and the enemy caster has a chance to disbelieve. If they disbelieve, the shadow magic only has a 20% chance of succeeding. Note, as I pointed out earlier, that this tactic is considerably less efficient -and potentially less effective- than just using Dispel Magic. I don't actually think you need to make a Will to disbelieve, though. It's like the spell's interacting with an object, really.
Seeker95 12-07-07, 11:19 PM	It [counterspelling] either works or it doesn't, and if it works, it means neither spell was ever cast at all.I'm just trying to gain clarification here. Are you saying that if a caster has his spell counterspelled, neither spell happened? They still have the spell? It doesn't get used up? Or do you just mean the original spell had no effect, and the counterspell was used up to accomplish that?
ArcTan 12-08-07, 12:00 AM	The original spell was cast but nothing happened, as was the counterspell. It's the same as casting a targeted spell on an invalid target -- the spell is used up with no physical effect.
groveborn 12-08-07, 04:46 AM	My understanding of counterspells is that you take the original spell, and tweak something in it to make a kind of anti-that-spell. like an antimagic field just for that spell, for that very short time. It just cancels it out. It happens at the completion of the original spell, at which point the counterspell takes over. It's always a standard action, so I'd say it takes 3 seconds or so :). Nah, let's say 4.
Seeker95 12-08-07, 11:03 AM	The original spell was cast but nothing happened, as was the counterspell.Thanks. :tiphat:
Taren 12-09-07, 12:33 AM	My understanding of counterspells is that you take the original spell, and tweak something in it to make a kind of anti-that-spell. except when you use improved counterspelling...then you can use Summon Monster IV to counterspell Sepia Snake Sigil, or Melf's Acid Arrow to counter Obscuring mist....