Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tspeck007 06-01-04, 01:22 PM	Assuming one will be using the Improvd Counterspelling feat and the Reactive Counterspelling feat (FR PHB) how effective will counterspelling truly be? The Imp Counterspelling works against spells one level lower. In essence i'll be able to counter every spell of an NPC two levels lower than me. In the few campaigns I've played, we tend to face a lesser number of opponents in individual battles which makes me beleive that the opposing spellcasters are going to be a few levels higher than us. This means that they'll likely be casting spells at least two spell levels higher than the highest spell I can counter using Imp Counter. Knowing this, just how effective will counterspelling be, especially if i plan on making countering a featured M.O. for my PC? Thanks in advance.
Tony Vargas 06-01-04, 01:34 PM	Sounds like you could be quite effective. You don't have to 'waste' actions readying, and you can counter spells you don't know, if it seems important enough to do so. I wouldn't count on it coming up a whole lot, though, since you're bound to face plenty of non-casters, the occassional higher-level caster you can't counter well, and lesser casters tossing around things that aren't worth countering - but when it's aplicable, it should be quite effective.
Polaris 06-01-04, 01:46 PM	tspeck, I am going to disagree with Tony. First of all, you still have to waste an action (which could have been used to cast the spell for real) to counterspell. The only difference reactive counterspell makes is that you don't have to ready an action. Secondly, you said it yourself. If you are facing casters higher level than yourself, then their primary attack spells will be spells you can't counter anyway....and even if you do, you actually lose more spell power than he does just by counterspelling. There are much better ways to protect yourself against spellcasting than counterspelling. Counterspelling simply blows great big cherry red chunks. -Polaris
mcintma 06-01-04, 07:07 PM	There are much better ways to protect yourself against spellcasting than counterspelling. Counterspelling simply blows great big cherry red chunks. Gross, but true
Edward 06-01-04, 08:45 PM	What you don’t have to wast a action on is readying to counter spell and then having no spell cast or a spell not worth counter spelling. Reactive counter spell and greater dispelling may make all the difference against those higher-level casters. There 2 levels hirer than you, you only need a 12 on the dice to dispel there spell as they cast it. Do that at the right time and it will win you a fight. Edward
Kyuketsukiouji 06-01-04, 09:02 PM	Most people who think counterspelling sucks are people who don't really get the concept of team play. Against a small number of more powerful oppoenents, counterspell is actually one of the best things you can do. You sacrifice one action to stop an opponent's action, and you let your numeric superiority make the difference. But no, you're not tossing around cool spells of desctructive power, so it's not as flashy. Then again, not being dead isn't too flashy either, but it beats the alternative.
RaistlinBN 06-01-04, 11:07 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=238504&highlight=counterspell There's a link to the same question you have. Lots of good arguments. I'm personally a fan of counterspelling...adds a whole new dimension to the usual "Buff" or "Burn" wizard/sorc style. I won't repeat myself...but check it out. Raist
wdarkk 06-01-04, 11:28 PM	It _is_ possible to counter without using an action, but that's an Epic feat. Still, if I built a character from scratch for Epic I'd include it.
Polaris 06-02-04, 12:52 AM	wdarkk, Yes, that's the problem. If there were a non-epic feat that allowed you to counterspell as an immediate action (to steal a term from the Expanded Psi Handbook) *or* counterspelling cost you less than the spell you were countering, then my stance would be different. As it is, it sucks. If you check out the thead in question, you find that the defenders of counterspelling had to spell out a highly contrived situation where each caster knew exactly what the other had and were just at the end of their respective spells (can we say 1:1 trillion odds or even worse?) just to find one case where it might be worthwhile. That says it all IMHO. -Polaris
smrtgmp 06-02-04, 01:21 AM	Originally posted by Polaris If you check out the thead in question, you find that the defenders of counterspelling had to spell out a highly contrived situation where each caster knew exactly what the other had and were just at the end of their respective spells (can we say 1:1 trillion odds or even worse?) just to find one case where it might be worthwhile. This is simply not true. Several situations were presented in which counterspelling is useful. If thats all you got from the thread, than you must not have read it very carefully. I'd say the best example provided was countering an enemies dispel so that they wouldnt nulify the party's buffs. Like I said on the other thread, its not something I use with any sort of frequency, but that doesnt mean I ignore it completely. It does have its uses.
wdarkk 06-02-04, 01:22 AM	I think counterspelling was created either to allow mage-fights to be more "contests of wills" than "who rolls poorly on the fort save first". The basic problem is that it almost always costs more than what you wanted to counter. In mtg, counterspelling is dying out in many formats for the same reason. A feat that allowed you to counter spells without wasting an action would be severely broken, since it could easily prevent the opposing mage from casting any non-quickened spells (I'm pretty sure those can't be countered). Thus it is placed with the rest of the things they're not sure the rules can handle, in Epic (where the game really is hung together with gentleman's agreements). Also, I don't think magic item activations can be countered, so a Staff of Dispel/Disjunction will still mess you up.
Polaris 06-02-04, 01:35 AM	Smrtgmp, Actually that thread refers to another "Why Counerspell..." in which these scenarios are taken apart logically and it was proven that in order to make counterspelling worthwhile, you had to have exactly the correct situation, perfect knowledge of the opponents memorized spells (and spells available) and perfect knowledge of how he was going to use the same. How often does this really happen? Basically, never. There are many other things you could be doing that are better than counterspelling such as casting a readied silence, readied magic-missile/scorching-ray/flame-strike/horrid-wilting (level depending), killing the opposing caster, protecting the party, etc etc etc. -Polaris
smrtgmp 06-02-04, 03:38 AM	Actually, that link goes to the "do you counterspell" thread, in which nothing was proven. You can make it bold and italicized all you want, it doesnt make it true.edit ah, I see what you're saying, the thread in question is refering to a different thread. I never read the other one, so I cant comment on it. I still maintain that counterspelling an enemies dispel can be useful. Like I said, I only use it rarely. And you can be pretty sure that anyone capable of casting a dispel will have some version prepared.
Polaris 06-02-04, 04:41 AM	smrtgmp, I can't think of any situation where I would counterspell ever using the DnD rules as written. Seriously. Why? Opportunity Cost. *IF* you make the spellcraft roll and *IF* you happen to have the correct spell prepared *IF* you have readied an action *IF* you can even see the components in question and finally *IF* the spell can even be countered (touch and personal spells generally can not be) THEN you get to trade your spell for his spell. This is truly too awful for words. I have yet to see a situation that isn't totally contrived (i.e. 1 trillion to one odds against) where you would ever use counterspelling. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 06-02-04, 01:56 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Actually that thread refers to another "Why Counerspell..." in which these scenarios are taken apart logically and it was proven that in order to make counterspelling worthwhile, you had to have exactly the correct situation, perfect knowledge of the opponents memorized spells (and spells available) and perfect knowledge of how he was going to use the same. Now, I will admit my scenario was contrived, but, it didn't require perfect knowledge of either the opponent's spells or intentions - it was just a situation in which readying to counterspell happened to virtually gaurantee victory and any other action resulted in the character being killed. And, while that (very) specific situation might never happen, it's just an example. There might quite often be situations in which counterspelling is the optimal tactic... they can just be very, very hard to identify - making the tactic frustrating and risky to use. Reactive counterspell seems to make a difference, though, as you don't have to ready, you have the chance to identify the spell being cast and decide whether it's worth counterspelling. So, the character the op had in mind could use counterspelling effectively - though, still probably not /often/, since it's still only worthwhile when you're facing a caster, and stopping his spell is more beneficial than casting your own.
RaistlinBN 06-02-04, 02:23 PM	"Why? Opportunity Cost. *IF* you make the spellcraft roll and *IF* you happen to have the correct spell prepared *IF* you have readied an action *IF* you can even see the components in question and finally *IF* the spell can even be countered (touch and personal spells generally can not be) THEN you get to trade your spell for his spell." Well...let's break it down, step by step. Feats: Improved Counterspell and Reactive Counterspell (if you don't take them, I'll agree...counterspelling becomes MUCH more difficult). IF you make the spellcraft roll - Well it's not too difficult. I believe you take the spell's level and add it to 17. That's the roll you have to make. If you're flinging spells with wizards that do serious damage, you should have ample skill points to put in something as important as spellcraft. IF you happen to have the correct spell prepared - This is where Improved Counterspell comes in. You can use ANY spell from the same school one level higher than the one being cast. Let's say you have a COMPLETELY useless spell prepared (as far as combat's concerned). Take that same useless spell, and now you've counterspelled the opposing wizard's attempt at either frying your approaching party-mates OR you've counterspelled the opposing wizard's attempt at dispelling all of their buffs. IF you have a readied action - This is where Reactive Counterspell comes in. The rule reads "Once per round, you can counterspell an opponent's spell even if you have not readied an action to do so. This counterspell action takes the place of your regular action for the round. You can't use this feat when flatfooted." So now instead of having to roll a super-high Spell Penetration to overcome the wizard or sorcerer's spell resistance, or deal with spells that counter your direct magical attacks, you can keep your party alive long enough to take it to the wizard/sorc where it really hurts...in melee. IF you can even see the components in question - That's what the spellcraft check is for, I believe. See above. IF the spell can even be countered - Again, that's what the spellcraft check is for. D&D rules state that you can spellcraft check pretty much at will (can't remember the exact terminology, and I'm at work...so at will will have to work for now). If you identify it as a spell that can be countered, then great, counter it. If you can't...no harm done, act normally. Counterspelling is best used as a surprise against an opposing spellcaster. Chances are, if the spellcaster realizes they've just been counterspelled, that they'll turn to their high level spells and hope that you can't duplicate the feat. However, sometimes buying time for the tank or the rogue in your party can REALLY make a difference. They get to melee combat with their hit points in tact OR with their buff spells untouched. I've used counterspell to nullify a wand of lightning bolts or fireballs. FORCE the wizard to empty his spell slots...don't give him free hits on the party. Strategy is key here...sure you can blast away till the cows come home, and it might even work. But don't discount counterspelling completely until you look at it from all angles. It can prove to be a MOST effective tool in gaming. Raist
Zaran 06-02-04, 02:43 PM	Counterspelling is a tremendous boon in my group. A wizard I play uses improved counterspelling and reactive counterspelling in conjunction with the Archmage PrC Mastery of Counterspelling abililty. I love it when my wizard can reflect an opposing wizard's spell back to the caster :) Also, my wizard always carries a spare Dispel Magic (or Greater Dispel Magic) to counter spells cast from a higher level spellcaster. Our current groups is mostly 15th level characters and we tend to encounter divine and arcane spell casters that like to throw 9th level spells at the group. The dispel magic spells work great in this circumstance (using reactive counterspell and the Archmage PrC ability the opposing caster's spell still reflects back to the opposing caster). Keeping the opposing spellcasters occupied allows the group fighter-types to remove servitor critters quickly and to destroy the arch-nemesis in due course.
Nagol 06-02-04, 03:03 PM	IF you make the spellcraft roll - Well it's not too difficult. I believe you take the spell's level and add it to 17. That's the roll you have to make. If you're flinging spells with wizards that do serious damage, you should have ample skill points to put in something as important as spellcraft. As stated in the Spellcraft description, you have to see or hear the components of the spell to be allowed to identify the spell. IF you happen to have the correct spell prepared - This is where Improved Counterspell comes in. You can use ANY spell from the same school one level higher than the one being cast. Let's say you have a COMPLETELY useless spell prepared (as far as combat's concerned). Take that same useless spell, and now you've counterspelled the opposing wizard's attempt at either frying your approaching party-mates OR you've counterspelled the opposing wizard's attempt at dispelling all of their buffs. Problem here is you are using a scarce resource to defeat a less scarce resource. Great if you are oodles of levels ahead of your opposition, but having a readied action to inflict great harm upon the caster inflicts great harm at the same time as generally preventing the casting. IF you have a readied action - This is where Reactive Counterspell comes in. The rule reads "Once per round, you can counterspell an opponent's spell even if you have not readied an action to do so. This counterspell action takes the place of your regular action for the round. You can't use this feat when flatfooted." So now instead of having to roll a super-high Spell Penetration to overcome the wizard or sorcerer's spell resistance, or deal with spells that counter your direct magical attacks, you can keep your party alive long enough to take it to the wizard/sorc where it really hurts...in melee. This feat can make the tactic more effective, though it comes down to which is better: stopping the identified spell from coming out or helping neutralise the target more permanently? I've used counterspell to nullify a wand of lightning bolts or fireballs. FORCE the wizard to empty his spell slots...don't give him free hits on the party. Then you have been using it under a generous DM. Counterspelling as written only applies spell casting. There is no provision for the tactic to function on a spell completion or spell trigger item. From the SRD: How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.) Can Counterspelling be an effective option? Yes, if you are willing to spend multple feats on it and are part of a large enough group where the incoming effects are much worse to the group than any benefit you could accomplish versus the opponent. It can also be effective if the enemy is immune to your abilites and is casting spells.
RaistlinBN 06-02-04, 03:51 PM	Nagol wrote: "As stated in the Spellcraft description, you have to see or hear the components of the spell to be allowed to identify the spell." Yep, you got me there. However, why even bother to counterspell if you can't see the somatic component or hear the verbal component? These are all things the character can decide almost instantaneously (in regards to the mechanics of the game). If this is the case, as I said previously, don't counterspell. "Problem here is you are using a scarce resource to defeat a less scarce resource. Great if you are oodles of levels ahead of your opposition, but having a readied action to inflict great harm upon the caster inflicts great harm at the same time as generally preventing the casting." You mean to tell me that it's not worth it being able to counterspell let's say 7th level spells and lower? Assuming both wizards last long enough to cast ALL of their prepared spells that day, I could see your point about it being futile. But if the fights are lasting that long, someone's not doing something right. "This feat can make the tactic more effective, though it comes down to which is better: stopping the identified spell from coming out or helping neutralise the target more permanently?" Like I said, and you affirmed, you can't make a blanket statement. Different strokes for different folks...and scenarios. "Then you have been using it [counterspell] under a generous DM. Counterspelling as written only applies spell casting. There is no provision for the tactic to function on a spell completion or spell trigger item." Counterspelling a wand with a dispel magic is the specific instance I was talking about. Dispel magic is something you can, I would hope, most certainly use on any spell's effect. Raist
Polaris 06-02-04, 04:02 PM	Guys, Even in the case of items counterspelling isn't worth it. In the first place you can't use standard counterspelling for wands since you must see or hear the components. If you are using Dispell Magic, then you are better off casting dispell magic on the item rather than on the spell 75% of the time (and 25% of the time it has the same effectiveness). As for feats, the fact you must blow three feats should be a dead giveaway that counterspelling is worthless. Think of what else you could have bought with the feats rather than sinking them into this stinker. Don't even bring feats into the picture because there is only one countespelling feat that is worth taking.....and that is an EPIC feat. -Polaris
wdarkk 06-02-04, 04:07 PM	Counterspelling can't be used on items. Usually I cast dispels from a staff anyway, since when you need them you need a lot of them. Basically, the biggest problem is having the right spell. Improved Counterspell doesn't help because it usually can't touch their highest level of spells (the most dangerous spells) unless they're lower in level than you, and not that dangerous anyway. Dispel magic has the same problem of only being reliable against those of lower level. Then you consider the various splatbooks and such that provide other offensive options, and your odds of having the right spell go down quite a bit.
Tony Vargas 06-02-04, 04:29 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Don't even bring feats into the picture because there is only one countespelling feat that is worth taking.....and that is an EPIC feat. Reactive Counterspell looks pretty reasonable. It makes counterspelling into an option that's generally available instead of having to commit to it by Readying. That gives you the luxury of knowning what you'll be counterspelling and letting you judge if it's worth it or not. It also means you'll be doing so having already cut loose on your prior initiative. And, for purposes of this discussion, it's a feat the character is assumed to have, making it pretty relevant.
Polaris 06-02-04, 04:35 PM	Tony, Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree w/r/t Reactive Counterspell. Yes it is better than standard counterspelling (what isn't) but it costs a feat! Even worse, you still have to give up your next action if you want to counterspell and that's just not worth it. As for your example, you had wizards casting defensive spells in the sixth round of combat and 1min/level spells going down in the middle of combat and you had perfect knowledge of both what spells they had. This situation is so unlikely to basically be the null set. I am also not going to give you the assumption that these feats will be had. Why? Because if counterspelling isn't worth doing in the first place then it certainly isn't worth spending feats on. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 06-02-04, 04:51 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Even worse, you still have to give up your next action if you want to counterspell and that's just not worth it. I can see why giving up your standard action to ready a counterspell, not knowing for certain if it will be of use, can be judged a generally bad idea. I don't see how, acting early, out of initiative order, knowing what the spell you'd be countering is, could be such a bad deal. You get to judge for yourself, at the moment the enemy is casting his spell, whether it's 'worth it.' I find it difficult to believe that it would never be worth your next spell to cancel a spell that's happening now. I mean, I expect casters sport some jumbo egos, but to honestly believe that nothing an enemy caster can ever do can compare to what you'll be tossing next round... ? As for your example, you had wizards casting defensive spells in the sixth round of combat and 1min/level spells going down in the middle of combat and you had perfect knowledge of both what spells they had. This situation is so unlikely to basically be the null set. Actually, I had pre-cast defensive spells assumed for both, exactly when that min/level spell went down almost didn't matter... if it lasted a while longer, the best option would still have been the counterspell. /I/ had perfect knowledge - what the two casters in the example knew about eachother was minimal - and, no knowledge at all was actually /needed/ for counterspelling to be the best option, since it was the only thing that was going to allow the one character to survive. The situation was contrived, but it did illustrate that, yes, there can be situations in which counterspelling is optimal. There are certainly many more, and more likely, ones in which it would at least be useful. I can understand looking at a tactic in a general way, and finding it lacking. I can't understand dismissing it /in all instances/, though. Even a tactic that is poor, overall, can be ideal in some cases. I am also not going to give you the assumption that these feats will be had. You don't have to give me that assumption, it's been made for us: Originally posted by tspeck007 Assuming one will be using the Improvd Counterspelling feat and the Reactive Counterspelling feat (FR PHB) ...
Zaran 06-02-04, 05:03 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Tony, I am also not going to give you the assumption that these feats will be had. Why? Because if counterspelling isn't worth doing in the first place then it certainly isn't worth spending feats on. -Polaris The value of counterspelling is inherently dependent upon the PC's taking advantage of the extra time to remove the offending spellcaster from play. Take a lich with initiative casting Horrid Wilting on a party with depleted hit points. What's a party to do? Reactive counterspell, which requires Improved Initiative (I can't recall a single character that I've played or PC I've played with which didn't acquire improved initiative) and Improved Counterspell (a feat which I won't take except is it a prerequisite for reactive counterspell) allows the caster to attempt to disrupt the lich's spell even though the wizard doesn't have initiative. My group is very, very happy that my wizard has reactive counterspell, particularly since he also has the archmage PrC master of counterspelling ability (lets a mage reflect a countered spell back to the caster of origin - a useful ability in many circumstances which I like to think of as effectively letting the counterspeller "cast" the reflected spell back on the caster of origin). Of course, our DM tends to favor spellcasting antagonists. Caveat: The group I play with is more about role playing then power playing. Each PC is designed to work as part of the group. I imagine that each character would be created differently if we were power playing.
wdarkk 06-02-04, 07:09 PM	Reactive counterspell won't let you counter when you're flat footed. In your example the party mage either had an unused Horrid Wilting prepared or had an unused 9th level Necromancy spell with a casting time of one action prepared (Wail of the Banshee, most likely). So let's recap. If the opponent is a spellcaster... If they rely on spells that they would cast in combat (as opposed to something like a Dragon or a PrC with a lot of Su abilities)... If they are using spells and not staves/wands... If your mage goes before theirs does (even Reactive Counterspell doesn't help you when you're flat footed)... If they are within reach of your melee... If they cast spells that you can counter... You can counter. On the other hand, Conjuration(Creation) spells allow you to disrupt with SR:No and there are at least two that deal bludgeoning damage in enough quantities to make for a hard concentration check. The ability to maximize/empower them (which is good anyway) can really help you with making the Concentration check impossible. 18 damage is a concentration check of 28+spell level, which is a wee bit hard at lower levels. Sudden Stalagmite from here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20021025a is the ultimate disrupt spell, as it does a maximum of 90 damage, bypasses SR and DR /magic, and has several added benefits. I'm sure there are lots of supplements with additional SR: No attack spells to use.
TWG_Prometheus 06-03-04, 12:08 AM	I play an Abjurer in my party, and I've also found counterspelling to be very useful, especially against stronger opponents. For starters, the standard version of D&D 'counterspell' where you expend a specific spell to counter an enemy spell...yeah, that's worthless. You might occaisionally find a situation where Improved Counterspell would help, but it's a prereq feat, much like many others. The fact of the matter is, though, that no one will appreciate an Abjurer until they've had their life saved by one. The moment that Horrid Wilting/Wail of the Banshee/Meteor Storm/Fireball/name it fizzles like a dying firework, however, the Abjurer is everyone's best friend. Now, with a caster that has Reactive Counterspell, was it worth it? 1. The caster did not have to wait around doing nothing for any amount of time until the spell they tried to counter was cast. 2. Against a stronger opponent, the spell the opponent was likely to cast probably will either kill or severely damage the party, probably removing their ability to destroy said opponent. If the spell is not threatening to that degree, the counterspeller will forego their counterspell attempt and loses nothing. Exit the remaining steps, as they no longer apply. 3. With dispel magic, all Spellcraft ect checks are out the window. No amount of Spell Turning, Concentration, or anything else can stop a dispel check from firing. 4. If (we're at our first if here) the dispel check is made, nothing happens. Except that the bad guy's best spell is gone, taken out by a lowly 3rd or 6th level Dispel Magic variant. 5. The cost for the counterspell comes. The person who counterspelled lost their action. However, no one in the party is dead or maimed, and the combat goes on. I would argue at this point, that no action in the game could have been better than killing that death spell, though. There you have it. *If* an enemy caster fires off a Major Spell of Badness (likely), a Dispel Magic counterspell attempt has a very high value, and Reactive Counterspell at a mere three feats (one of which would be taken by a large segment of the player population anyway) provides the means to do so efficiently. Ignore any complaints or arguments about Reactive Counterspell not working if you are flat-footed, as nothing anyone can do in that situation helps. Unfortunately, there is a problem, still. While I am a big fan of Dispel Magic, the game rules provide little support for performing such actions effectively. The problem lies in Dispel Magic, with the caster level +11 DC. What this means is that *if* the counterspeller is at a level even with their opponent, their success result is 50/50. Is this worth it to save your friends? Probably. A spellcaster that dedicates themselves to protecting the party from incoming enemy spells deserves better, however. In my campaign, I talked the DM into allowing me to take a homebrew feat that gave a bonus to all dispel checks, giving me the advantage in a Dispel Magic battle against a similar opponent. With that modification, Dispel Magic has proved an indispensible part of our party strategy. wdarkk has made a passable argument that readying a spell to hit a spellcaster with a lot of damage is a better means of disrupting a spell, and that may be the case in many situations. However, it does not take into account the vagaries of combat. Readying an action requires you to pick a target ahead of time, making the tactic dramatically less useful against multiple spellcasters. Counterspelling also only prevents one enemy from casting, but Reactive Counterspell does allow one to make that decision later. It also does not allow for shifts in a battle that may force the mage in question to forego counterspelling in order to deal with a more immediate threat. The sheer utility of Reactive Counterspell gives to an Abjurer in allowing them to defend the party from a multitude of threats is immense. Also, if one does ready an action to cast a big spell on an enemy when the enemy casts a spell, the enemy could choose to do nothing, wasting that mage's action entirely. It's a nice thought, but nothing beats enemy spellcasting like a solid counterspell. In conclusion Abjurers in general and counterspelling specifically are poorly supported by the rules, but they are valuable. Some people won't agree with me, but keep in mind that there is no spell in the whole game less efficient than Raise Dead.
Edward 06-03-04, 12:41 AM	One situation where with know knowledge or feats it is a good idea to ready a counter spell. In a standoff situation. You don’t want to act in a precipitous fashion by actually casting something but you can reedy a counter spell in case they break the deadlock first. You can sit like that for minutes while facing of a spell caster you are deciding wether or not to trust. You can even talk although you must not let your guard down (RP point, limit yourself to short comments you cant lead the negotiation). Edward
Polaris 06-03-04, 01:23 AM	Originally posted by Edward One situation where with know knowledge or feats it is a good idea to ready a counter spell. In a standoff situation. You don’t want to act in a precipitous fashion by actually casting something but you can reedy a counter spell in case they break the deadlock first. You can sit like that for minutes while facing of a spell caster you are deciding wether or not to trust. You can even talk although you must not let your guard down (RP point, limit yourself to short comments you cant lead the negotiation). Edward You can ready any disabling/damage spell and get the same effect with a lot more chances of actual success. -Polaris
Zaran 06-03-04, 08:03 PM	Originally posted by Polaris You can ready any disabling/damage spell and get the same effect with a lot more chances of actual success. -Polaris Agreed. However, a ready action loses a lot of its value if the opposing spellcaster has initiative in the first round (since the opposing spellcaster will be able to cast its mega-death-on-PCs spell before the party spellcasters can declare ready actions). Depends on your DM's pattern of play. If your DM tends to boost antagonist initiative (like mine does), then reactive counterspell can be useful. If your DM uses an alternative initiative rule, like the one from UA which requires each PC and antagonist to reroll initiative each round, a ready action may be more accessible. I doubt anyone would argue that a spellcaster can get more "mileage" from a readied disabling/damage spell over counterspelling. If my character has the option I'd rather use a ready action to disable my opponent and/or cause it damage AND disrupt its spell instead of merely counterspelling. However, PC's don't always get that opportunity and my characters have died too many times. Counterspelling using the Reactive Counterspelling feat has save a party member (or my own character) from dying at pretty much every play session. I would not choose the Improved Counterspell feat except that the feat is a prerequisite for the Reactive Counterspell feat. A ready action is preferable over use of Improved Counterspell (as Polaris and others have already illustrated). But...in life-n-death situations where a ready action isn't available Reactive Counterspell can save the day. Concerning the prior statements that Reactive Counterspell isn't useful if the spellcaster is flat-footed... Duh! In non-epic campaigns nothing will prevent an antagonist uber spellcaster from laying waste to your party if you're caught flat-footed. Just don't get caught flat-footed :angel: Make your party scouts earn their keep! Thanks for reading this tedious and poorly thought out opinion.
Polaris 06-03-04, 08:41 PM	Zaran, The problem is that if the DM pushes the BBEG's init through the ceiling, then you are still hosed. Not even reactive counterspell lets you counterspell when flatfooted. In fact to my knowledge, counterspelling while flatfooted is impossible.....all of which sort of proves my point I think. -Polaris
Zaran 06-03-04, 08:51 PM	Polaris, Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree since I cannot convince you that counterspelling can be beneficial and you cannot convince me that it isn't. Nice thing about these boards is they offer folks with differing opinions the opportunity to express their ideas and opinions while getting to view the other player's ideas and opinions.
Polaris 06-03-04, 08:56 PM	Zaran, Agreeing to disagree sounds nice and civilized, but frankly there are limits. All I am asking to do is show me when, by the rules on a reasonably consistant and common basis where counterspelling is ever a good idea. I bet you can not. My point about not being able to counterspell while flatfooted is a fact not a disagreement...... [I personally hate this 'everyone has a right to their own opinion, PCness...] -Polaris
Zaran 06-03-04, 09:18 PM	LOL! You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Quite simply, counterspelling using the Reactive Counterspell feat is not only a good idea but a great idea since it lets you ignore a crappy initiative roll. Common scenerio without Reactive Counterspell: antagonist spellcaster with initiative has a high probability of causing damage or death to the party. Common scenerio with Reactive Counterspell: antagonist spellcaster with initiative. Party spellcaster has Reactive Counterspell. Party spellcaster has chance to eliminate antagonist spellcaster's damage / death threat. The only times the party spellcaster doesn't have the opportunity to eliminate the antagonist spellcaster's damage / death threat is if the party spellcaster is flat-footed or out of usable spells (which rarely happens in my experience). Reactive counterspell is beneficial unless your spellcaster ALWAYS wins initiative (which I find unlikely). I never implied that there was a disagreement concerning the inability to counterspell while flat-footed. The disagreement stems from the assumption that the inability to counterspell while flat-footed makes counterspelling worthless. Counterspelling has a very definite benefit as illustrated in the above scenerios. I respect the opinion of very Poster no matter how different the Poster's opinion may be from my own.
Tony Vargas 06-03-04, 10:22 PM	Originally posted by Polaris All I am asking to do is show me when, by the rules on a reasonably consistant and common basis where counterspelling is ever a good idea. "Reasonably consistent and common basis?" What, exactly, do you mean by that? Because, I don't think counterspelling could be a primary tactic for a caster in any but the most unusual settings - there're just going to be too many encounters with non-casters for that. It's a situationally useful tactic - one that can have quite an impact, when it does come up, but which probably doesn't come up that often. I personally hate this 'everyone has a right to their own opinion, PCness... -Polaris Well, you're entitled to that opinion.... :smirk:
Polaris 06-03-04, 11:26 PM	Zaran said: Common scenerio with Reactive Counterspell: antagonist spellcaster with initiative. Party spellcaster has Reactive Counterspell. Party spellcaster has chance to eliminate antagonist spellcaster's damage / death threat. The only times the party spellcaster doesn't have the opportunity to eliminate the antagonist spellcaster's damage / death threat is if the party spellcaster is flat-footed or out of usable spells (which rarely happens in my experience). WRONG! You can NOT use reactive counterspell if you are flatfooted. Thus if the opposing caster wins initiative you are just as screwed with or without reactive counterspell. This is a simple fact that you can look up yourself. -Polaris
RaistlinBN 06-04-04, 12:37 AM	Polaris, No one's arguing that counterspelling is full proof (show me anything that is in D&D). What we *are* saying is that it's not COMPLETELY useless (despite your best efforts to prove otherwise). Simple fact of the matter: There are people who have used counterspelling effectively...there are those who haven't. I'm sure everyone appreciates your contributions and alternatives to counterspelling, and we all know where you stand on the matter. Job well done. Raist
Failut 06-04-04, 12:55 AM	Originally posted by tspeck007 Assuming one will be using the Improvd Counterspelling feat and the Reactive Counterspelling feat (FR PHB) how effective will counterspelling truly be? The Imp Counterspelling works against spells one level lower. In essence i'll be able to counter every spell of an NPC two levels lower than me. In the few campaigns I've played, we tend to face a lesser number of opponents in individual battles which makes me beleive that the opposing spellcasters are going to be a few levels higher than us. This means that they'll likely be casting spells at least two spell levels higher than the highest spell I can counter using Imp Counter. Knowing this, just how effective will counterspelling be, especially if i plan on making countering a featured M.O. for my PC? Thanks in advance. Now that the mud-slining is done.. I have to say that in one game that I was in, we had a Mystic Thurge that had the Improved Counterspell feat and he was not only able to successfully counter damageing spells against us, but with that PrC, he was able to counter the other sides healing spells (makes for a kind of ruthless in group on group battles) But that aside, I think that you should do pretty good. But just remember that it is highly situational. Just like all other builds.
wdarkk 06-04-04, 02:09 AM	How was he able? He'd need to have a ton of high-level spells, but that PrC all but ensures your enemies' spells are higher in level than yours.
Polaris 06-04-04, 03:22 AM	Failut, In addition to wdarkk's comment (which is spot-on), I'd also like to know how you managed to counterspell healing spells since those spells have a range of touch? I think that the DM was using houserules that you didn't realize he was using. You can't counterspell a spell that is out of range.... -Polaris
Nagol 06-04-04, 07:21 AM	Reactive counterspell is beneficial unless your spellcaster ALWAYS wins initiative (which I find unlikely). After the first round, it is immaterial who won initiative. Once the spell-caster gets his first intiative, he has counter-spelling options. If you have Reactive Counterspell, you have a round-by-round, spell-by-spell choice to throw away your next action and counter-spell instead. Wihout Reactive Counterspell, a character has a choice of Readying a counterspell to be used against a specific target. While the tactic is usually quite sub-optimal, Reactive Counterspell does substantailly improve it. I can think of a few reasonable uses for it in adventuring. Scenario 1: Group is travelling and encounters lower-level random encounter on the road. Enemy spellcaster attempts a Fireball on the group. Caster does not believe the enemy group is likely to survive another full-round even without his input. Caster counterspells reasoning that a single 3rd level spell is less vital than the amount of healing that will be used to mitigate this damage. Scenario 2: Group is hunting a spellcaster who uses magic to escape. A caster is detailed to counterspell any escape-style spells cast by the enemy to help lock him down (things like Invisibility, Phase Door, Gaseous Form, etc. aren't stopped by Dimensional Anchor or Dimensional Lock). The rest of the group piles damage and continuous damage into the caster. In this case, the counter-spelling ally is an insurance policy. Scenario 3: Enemy caster just bull-rushed off of a cliff-face. Caster counter-spells enemy caster's Featherfall spell. The times that Coutnerspell is clearly inferior to most other tactics is when the group is clearly facing a challenge from the opponent and the opponent is trying to kill them. In other words, most of the adventuring life.
Failut 06-04-04, 08:11 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Failut, In addition to wdarkk's comment (which is spot-on), I'd also like to know how you managed to counterspell healing spells since those spells have a range of touch? I think that the DM was using houserules that you didn't realize he was using. You can't counterspell a spell that is out of range.... -Polaris This was with an alternat rule from the Unearthed Arcana on Magic and caster levels.. (I do think that there was some house rulling in there also), but as to the countering cure spells.. with Improved counter spell.. He would only need to be within range for the spell that was 1 level higher then the spell that he was countering. For example using the dispel Magic to counter spell, it does not say anything about range of the spell to be countered, so that you can counter at med range for spells.. .. same with the improved counterspell feat.. which allows you to counter a spell like Cure Serious wounds (the lvl 3 touch spell) with Dimension Door (the Lvl 4 Long range spell.) because both are of the school of Conjuration. I took this from the SRD section on counterspelling COUNTERSPELLS It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane. How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.) If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things. 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. Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered Specific Exceptions: Some spells specifically counter each other, especially when they have diametrically opposed effects. Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, and you don’t need to identify the spell he or she is casting. However, dispel magic doesn’t always work as a counterspell (see the spell description). and here is the SRD section on the improved counterspelling feat : IMPROVED COUNTERSPELL [GENERAL] Benefit: When counterspelling, you may use a spell of the same school that is one or more spell levels higher than the target spell. Normal: Without this feat, you may counter a spell only with the same spell or with a spell specifically designated as countering the target spell. No where in either states that you have to be the target of the intended spell or even within range of the spell, as long as the other caster is in range of what ever you use to counter. thus with a MT with a lot of 3rd lvl spells for dispel magic and the feat improved counterspell for those times when he does not think that he needs the dispel, he has a good chance @ dispelling almost anything in the game..
wdarkk 06-04-04, 10:17 AM	That must have been a pretty extensive or game-altering house rule. Ordinarily a MT can barely dispel anything.
Zaran 06-04-04, 03:45 PM	Originally posted by Polaris [ WRONG! You can NOT use reactive counterspell if you are flatfooted. Thus if the opposing caster wins initiative you are just as screwed with or without reactive counterspell. This is a simple fact that you can look up yourself. -Polaris [/B] Reread the post to which you were referring. For the um-teenth time, I concur that reactive counterspell is ineffective when the caster is flat-footed. I never implied or stated otherwise. :::shrugs::: I have no idea where you got the idea to the contrary. How often is your character caught flat-footed? How often is your character behind on initiative? Most likely you're your PC is behind on initiative more often then he/she is caught flat-footed. Regardless, nothing in my scenerios implied that the party members were flat-footed. Rationalizing that Counterspelling isn't worth the effort because Counterspelling is ineffectiven in a limited situation (when the PC is flat-footed) is like arguing that Improved Critical isn't worth it because it's ineffective against constructs and undead. Does the fact that a PC cannot counterspell while flat-footed make counterspelling worthless? I say no. I assume that Polaris would say yes. My character is rarely caught flat-footed thanks to the efforts of the scouts in my group. I would not invalidate a skill, ability or feat merely because it is ineffective in a few circumstances. Since nothing is effective in every circumstance there wouldn't be any skills, abilities or feats left to choose. I never implied that counterspelling was effective in every situation. You requested a common scenerio wherein counterspelling would be effective. I provided one. Would I counterspell if I had the option of a ready action? No. A ready action is more often the better solution (as previosly stated). Remember, you can't have a ready action against an antagonist spellcaster if you're flat-footed against that spellcaster. As my previously posted scenerio illustrated, Reactive counterspell is beneficial at the next stage of the encounter here neither the party nor the angontist is flat-footed but the antagonist spellcaster has the advantage of initiative (an advantage that would last the majority of the rounds in the encounter). Interestingly enough, not only does my group get the concept (two lawyers, a physician, a teacher and an accountant), but my eight year old daughter gets the concept as well. Go figure...
Polaris 06-04-04, 04:28 PM	Originally posted by Zaran As my previously posted scenerio illustrated, Reactive counterspell is beneficial at the next stage of the encounter here neither the party nor the angontist is flat-footed but the antagonist spellcaster has the advantage of initiative (an advantage that would last the majority of the rounds in the encounter). Interestingly enough, not only does my group get the concept (two lawyers, a physician, a teacher and an accountant), but my eight year old daughter gets the concept as well. Go figure... The physcian, teacher, and accountant ought to review basic logic. I will forgive the 8 year girl. Point is that initiative makes no difference after that first crucial round. That is why Reactive Counterspell is so bad....and the fact you have to pay two feats for it makes it a total loss. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 06-04-04, 04:47 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Point is that initiative makes no difference after that first crucial round. That is why Reactive Counterspell is so bad.... So reactive counterspell is sooooo bad, because it's useless in one-round TPKs when you lose initiative? I guess the game's all about Contingency, then, because everything else is just worthless... :rolleyes: OK, seriously now, I think the point of reactive counterspell is not having to ready. You no longer have to decide, on your turn, whether to act or ready to counterspell - you can act knowing that you'll still have the option to counterspell if you want.
Zaran 06-04-04, 06:03 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Point is that initiative makes no difference after that first crucial round. -Polaris Interesting observation, but I must disagree. Tony Vargas's recent post points out the advantage of Reactive Counterspelling quite well. Initiative may make less of a difference after the initial round, but still impacts the outcome of every round of every encounter, assuming you survive that first crucial round in the first place. The only way initiative would make no difference is if your PC spellcaster survived the first round and decided to use a ready action each and every round. Maybe that's your style of play - it isn't mine. If initiative was rerolled every round (using an alternate rule outlined in UA), I'd be less likely to take counterspell feats and would instead rely upon Cat's Grace or similar spell increase the chance of initiative each round. The cost of two feats is pretty steep and I'd jump for joy if my DM would combine Improved Counterspell and Reactive Counterspell. But until such time as my DM allows initiative round-by-round I'm sticking with Reactive Counterspell (and the Archmage PrC Mastery of Counterspelling ability).
wdarkk 06-04-04, 08:27 PM	How is it supposed to prevent first-round TPKs when in something like 89% of the time those come from people of higher level than you? You can't (reliably) counterspell higher level people. You can interrupt them.
Tony Vargas 06-04-04, 08:34 PM	double post
Tony Vargas 06-04-04, 09:42 PM	Originally posted by wdarkk How is it supposed to prevent first-round TPKs? I don't know, but if it can't, it's obviously worthless, because 1st-round TPK's where you lose initiative, clearly happen on a "reasonably consistent and common basis."
wdarkk 06-04-04, 10:01 PM	You seemed to think that was a fairly important reason, if you now think it isn't so important, maybe you should find a new reason to suggest that counterspelling is is in fact non-sucky compared to the alternatives.
Tony Vargas 06-04-04, 10:06 PM	I'm not making a claim. I'm expressing my frustration with the hyperbole and sweeping claims being made. And, I'm doing so in a way that does not work well in a purely written medium, even though I should know better - for that, I apologize.
wdarkk 06-04-04, 10:36 PM	Ah. Sorry. I'm just as bad at sarcasm detection in real life.