I LOVE 4.0! Love it! I admit that I liked how Wizards were handled in 3.5 better, but 4.0 is so different that I understand why handling spells is also just as different.
I do think it'd be pretty easy to "carry over" the 3.5 rules for Counter-spells into 4.0. I adored the concept behind counter-spells, and made spell-caster vs. spell-caster battles so much more dynamic and strategic.
My House Rules for Counter-spells in 4.0:
First, a basic counter-spell works exactly the same, as follows:
1. A spell-caster can counter a spell using the same exact spell.
2. It's a standard action to counter a spell, but it happens as an immediate interrupt. Of course, using a spell as a counter-spell "uses up" that spell, just like it did in 3.5.
3. To know what spell is being cast in the first place is an Arcana skill check. (DC=level of spell being cast).
4. Of course, you can only counter a spell that is being cast at you (or that includes you in the area of affect). If someone is casting invisibility on himself, you can't counter that.
Improved Counter-spell is where new rules come into play. So here's my House Rules for it:
1. You need to get the feat Improved Counter-spell.
2. To counter a spell using Improved Counter-spell, you must do so using a spell of higher level that shares at least one keyword with the spell you're countering (EDIT: not counting the keywords Arcane or Implement, since every damn spell has those).
3. Furthermore, only Daily spells can counter Daily spells. A Daily spell, however, may be used to counter an encounter spell.
Any ideas or thoughts? Improvements on my system? Again, if you flat out never liked counter-spells to start with, please refrain from posting.
But with everyone being essentially a spellcaster, shouldn't this be expanded so all classes can take part?
Well, everyone has "powers", but not everyone has "spells".
The book seems pretty clear that a martial power is not magical in any way, it's just a really bad-ass maneuver that is so difficult to pull off the player can't do it over and over (so it gets "used up" like a spell does).
The concept behind counter-spells was that a spell-caster could negate the magical energies of a spell using the same spell (or a similar spell in the case of Improved Counter-spell) by slightly augmenting the casting. A "power" that is not magical at all wouldn't be able to have this affect.
But with everyone being essentially a spellcaster, shouldn't this be expanded so all classes can take part?
This. For example, applying this to martial powers would represent familiarity with a particular maneuver and the ability to effectively counter the enemy's attack with an appropriate counter maneuver.
How about these for ideas:
- Don't make it require the same spell - just make it require the same power source, or one-or-more of the same descriptors like in your Imp. Counterspell example. (This also allows for, say, a rogue "countering" a fighter's strike - which is a cool idea IMO).
- This does make the Arcana check a little trickier...maybe Arcana for arcane, Religion for divine...Streetwise for martial?
- At-Wills can only counterspell at-wills, encounters can counterspell encounters or at-wills, and dailies can counterspell anything...IF the spell you're using is of an equal or higher level than the ability being used.
- Make solos and elites immune to counterspelling. The above rule sort of does this, but only if you use solos/elites higher than the PC level, which won't always happen. A PC should never be negating more than his fair share of enemy actions.
I'm also a little confused by your "standard/interrupt" idea. Do you mean for it to work like in 3e? In that case I think it works fine but you should specify the standard action is a readied action.
This. For example, applying this to martial powers would represent familiarity with a particular maneuver and the ability to effectively counter the enemy's attack with an appropriate counter maneuver.
That makes sense. Personally, I'd continue limiting the counter concept to just spells. IMHO, it just makes more sense that since spells are the outcome of weaving magical energies, one could "negate" those energies by weaving the exact same energies with slight augmentations.
If someone is using a martial maneuver you're extremely familiar with (i.e. you have prepared to use), you'd certainly have a better chance at defending yourself, but completely negating it seems like it might be a little too much. However, your idea does make sense, this is just my personal opinion.
- This does make the Arcana check a little trickier...maybe Arcana for arcane, Religion for divine...Streetwise for martial?
Maybe just Insight, period, albeit at a higher DC? Just a thought, since "recognize what someone's about to do" tends to be part of the broadened perview of Insight, although specialized knowledge.
As far as the mechanic goes, its tricky to make work, because of how PCs and NPCs are built in fundamentally different ways now. I would say it must match power source and one other keyword (not a power source keyword) to work, and you must use a daily to counter (since NPCs only have encounter powers, and no daily powers).
I would make it an at-will immediate interrupt. The skill check would be based on the level of the creature attacking you: DC = 15 + 1/2 the level of the creature attacking you. Elites would be +2 DC, Solos would be +5. If you fail the check, you do not recognize the power, and cannot stop it.
I like the idea of using Insight for martial, so it would be Insight for martial, Arcana for arcane, and religion for Divine.
Skip
- Make solos and elites immune to counterspelling.
Skip
I'm also a little confused by your "standard/interrupt" idea. Do you mean for it to work like in 3e? In that case I think it works fine but you should specify the standard action is a readied action.
Well, my examples for counter-spelling are really made for when a PC is battling someone that casts the same spells as him/her (like an NPC wizard). So counter-spelling monster-spells could be impossible, unless you used Improved Counter-spell.
And you're right about my description of the "standard/interrupt" thing. It'd work like in 3e, and hence be a readied action.
Of note, when I played 3e, I found necessitating a readied action to counter-spelling made counter-spelling never, ever happen. So basically, counter-spell worked as an immediate interrupt. Doing so, however, "used up" that player's standard action turn (so he could still do his move/minor actions/etc when it was his turn, but he had already done his standard action when he counter-spelled, so he couldn't cast a spell, attack, or do whatever else you can do as a standard action). However, this thread is really about the core mechanics for counter-spelling, so I didn't bother getting too specific on the action of doing it.
Since you brought it up though (and for good reason!), I would make Counter-spell be a Class Feature for all spell-casters. If it was described in the book, it'd look like this:
--Counter-spell--
At-will * Arcane
Your recognize your opponent is casting a spell you already have prepared; casting this same spell with slight alterations, you weave the magical energies so they negate each other.
Standard Action (it occurs immediately, though, as if it were an immediate interrupt). Therefore, if you have already used your standard action, you cannot counter-spell this round.
Requirement: You must have the same spell prepared in order to counter it. You must be a target of this spell to counter it. Furthermore, to know what spell your opponent is casting, you must succeed at an Arcana skill check (DC=level of spell you are countering). If you fail, you don't what spell is being cast, and therefore cannot counter it.
Effect: You successfully counter-spell your opponent's spell.
Thanks for your ideas! They are good
--Counter-spell--
At-will * Arcane
Your recognize your opponent is casting a spell you already have prepared; casting this same spell with slight alterations, you weave the magical energies so they negate each other.
Standard Action (it occurs immediately, though, as if it were an immediate interrupt). Therefore, if you have already used your standard action, you cannot counter-spell this round.
Requirement: You must have the same spell prepared in order to counter it. You must be a target of this spell to counter it. Furthermore, to know what spell your opponent is casting, you must succeed at an Arcana skill check (DC=level of spell you are countering). If you fail, you don't what spell is being cast, and therefore cannot counter it.
Effect: You successfully counter-spell your opponent's spell.
The problem with this is that it makes it so your ability to counter-spell is based on the initiative order, which seems kind of wonky to me. Also, there is no such thing as "spell level". There is level of the creature casting the spell, or for NPCs built as PCs you have the level of the power. Having the DC increase based on half level makes the math work out all the way from level 1 to level 30. Thus, the DC should be expressed as X + 1/2 level of creature casting spell.
1. The problem with this is that it makes it so your ability to counter-spell is based on the initiative order, which seems kind of wonky to me.
2. Also, there is no such thing as "spell level". There is level of the creature casting the spell, or for NPCs built as PCs you have the level of the power. Having the DC increase based on half level makes the math work out all the way from level 1 to level 30. Thus, the DC should be expressed as X + 1/2 level of creature casting spell.
Note: "1" and "2" edited by me to make my reply easier to read
1. In this way, it works like a "readied action", only better. If you think you might want to counter-spell, you can voluntarily decide to take your turn after your opponent. Unlike a readied action, however, if you decided not to counter-spell, you can still take your turn normally after the opponent, instead of completely losing your turn altogether (like a normal readied action use to work in 3e). If both you and the opponent decide to "wait" to counter-spell, they either both lose their turns, or they both act normally at the end of the turn as if they had both rolled the same exact Initiative (but the lowest Initiative roll of everyone else in the encounter who wasn't waiting to counter-spell). Personally, I've been using the latter.
Someone else said it could be a normal Immediate Interrupt, which makes good sense too.
2. You're right, that does make better sense.
Action: Preparing to counter is a standard action, and you lose all unused actions.
Power: Choose one of your attack powers which you will use to attempt a counter.
Target: Choose an enemy to counter that is in range of your chosen power. If a Weapon power, the target must be within your weapon's reach.
Trigger: If the target attempts an attack power, make a level check opposed by 10 + the target's level. Gain a +2 bonus if you are countering with an encounter power and a +5 bonus if countering with a daily. The target gets a +2 bonus to their defense if using a recharge power and a +5 bonus if using an encounter power.
Result: If your level check succeeded, the target's power is expended with no result, as is the power you chose. If you failed, the target's power proceeds as normal, and yours is expended. If the target did not use an attack power, or they moved out of range of your power first, your power is not expended.
1. PCs rarely, if ever, have the same powers as monsters, so requiring the PC to have the same power prepared makes Counterspelling about half a screen door away from useless.
2. Monster attacks do not have a power source, regardless if they are intended to be innately magical or not, so any requirements based on power source will be equally useless.
3. Just from the perspective of simplicity, couldn't you just say that when an obviously magical attack fails to hit a caster PC's defenses, that instead of dodging/resisting, the PC couterspelled it?
Problems with the concept as directly translated from 3E mechanics:
1. PCs rarely, if ever, have the same powers as monsters, so requiring the PC to have the same power prepared makes Counterspelling about half a screen door away from useless.
2. Monster attacks do not have a power source, regardless if they are intended to be innately magical or not, so any requirements based on power source will be equally useless.
3. Just from the perspective of simplicity, couldn't you just say that when an obviously magical attack fails to hit a caster PC's defenses, that instead of dodging/resisting, the PC couterspelled it?
A few questions!
1. What the heck is page 42?
2. What's RTFM or GTFO? (I'm assuming the latter is get the [bleep] out)
Good to see ya again, Novacat!
-M
A few questions!
1. What the heck is page 42?
2. What's RTFM or GTFO? (I'm assuming the latter is get the [bleep] out)
Good to see ya again, Novacat!
-M
Read The
ManualPage 42 refers to page 42 of the 4ed DMG.
Monster attacks do not have a power source, regardless if they are intended to be innately magical or not, so any requirements based on power source will be equally useless.
Yeah, I think any PC v. Monster counterspelling would have to be limited by [descriptor], if anything (kieferz's version discard it completely, and looks like it would work fine).
Just from the perspective of simplicity, couldn't you just say that when an obviously magical attack fails to hit a caster PC's defenses, that instead of dodging/resisting, the PC couterspelled it?
For simplicity, sure. But I think for anyone wanting the flavor and mechanics of counterspelling (rather than just considering it "icing"), that isn't going to cut it.
The book seems pretty clear that a martial power is not magical in any way.
I disagree with this premise. While many of the martial powers are truly mundane-but-heroic, many, if not most, past the heroic tier are truly mystical, magical, and downright supernatural.
I also believe there does not need to be any method of "countering spells" in 4e because there are already plenty of powers in all classes that let you counter the powers of those seeking to attack you. From immediate interrupts to encounter-length powers, the idea of countering an opponent is now broader in application to involve everybody.
1. PCs rarely, if ever, have the same powers as monsters, so requiring the PC to have the same power prepared makes Counterspelling about half a screen door away from useless.
Admittedly, the way I've been counter-spelling so far in 4e, it's only used when a PC wizard is fighting an NPC wizard, never with monsters. This means it's hardly come into play. But, I still like it being an option.
Partly it's because my wizard character (which I made with 3e, and now carried over into 4e) was role-played in such a way that he only views magic as being the true power; he's quite the elitist in this sense, and has less respect for martial classes, even if they are just as good as a spell-casting class. Even though I know my character is wrong, it's how I role-play him.
As such, I pick powers/items/etc. for him that center on protection from spells rather than protection from more "natural" attacks (like a sword in the gut), which is why I liked him being a counter-spelling bad-ass. Technically he'd be better off balancing his defenses, but I just don't role-play him as putting much credit to non-spell-casters.
I also believe there does not need to be any method of "countering spells" in 4e because there are already plenty of powers in all classes that let you counter the powers of those seeking to attack you. From immediate interrupts to encounter-length powers, the idea of countering an opponent is now broader in application to involve everybody.
This is a good point. I certainly don't mean to imply I think the game is unbalanced without counterspells. I just like the concept of counterspells.
EDIT: By the way, Seeker, I quoted you today on a different post from a thread you commented on a long time ago! http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1134342 You're famous!
I think that many people like the concept, but the execution of it may not result in fun long term.
I think that many people like the concept, but the execution of it may not result in fun long term.
I don't quite agree with this. I'd make a comparison to counterspell decks in Magic, personally.
Ask a hundred Magic players, and most of them will probably tell you that it's not much fun playing against a counterspell deck - especially a good one.
However, ask that same number of players and you will find just as many or more that find it lots of fun to play with a counterspell deck. There is a reason Control is so popular in Magic. Some people just get their jollies neutering the opponent. :P
However, in D&D the only times where a person could be said to be "playing against a counterspell" is if:
a) the DM can do it to the players, or
b) the players can do it to elites and solos (basically whenever the DM is using fewer enemies than there are PCs).
If both of these conditions are taken care of so they don't happen, I think a counter-spelling mechanic could be a lot of fun for certain kinds of players. The only major problem then would be that it slows down combat resolution, since you're spending actions negating hits instead of dealing the hp damage that victory is centered on in 4e.