Each level of a wizard's spell list has dozens of spells in core, not to mention a myriad of other magic sources. When meeting wizards in battle, chances are slim to none that you will have the exact spell that they do or one of the very few other spells that can cancel what they cast. This leaves you with relying on dispel magic counters which only work half the time against someone of your same level. In essence, counter-spelling rarely works and as a result is rarely used. Therefore, I have come up with some optional rules to make counter-spelling more viable.
I always see wizards' duels as a mental struggle, each caster waiting for the other to make the first move; not a roll for initiative. It starts the same, readying an action to counter-spell. However, when they cast the spell, you don't need to have that spell readied to be able to counter it, though that works as well. If you know the spell—you have copied it into a spellbook at some point thus making you intimately familiar with it--you may sacrifice spell levels equaling twice the cast spell to counter it in the same way as a dispel magic. Therefore, if lightning bolt were cast and you knew that spell, you could sacrifice a 4th level spell and a 2nd level spell to attempt to counter it. Of course, you may also use dispel magic as normal.
Once you counter a spell, it so jars your opponent that he is not able to cast arcane spells for a number of rounds equaling your caster level minus theirs for a minimum of one round. Therefore, if they are two levels lower than you, they can't cast a spell for two rounds. Note this does not prevent the use of staves and wands, making them indispensable in a wizard's duel.
With these rules in place, not only does it make spell-casting battles more tactical, but it also leads wizards to constantly be on a quest to learn every spell imaginable so as to not be caught off guard by a spell they don't know, all the while trying to do just that to their opponents. Doing this, a wizard can easily end up with a small library of spells by mid to high level.
Clerics' and druids' counter-spelling should not be affected by the first portion of this rule change because they 'know' every spell. Even so, the shock of being countered does prevent their casting for a time. As well, their magics are of a more physical nature anyway.
Sorcerers are affected the most severely by this change in the rules. I must admit that in my own games I don't have to worry about it as all sorcerers are battle-sorcerers. My group feels this is much more in sync with our game’s flavor, as opposed to being as fragile as wizards. A sorcerer with the spell dispel magic could hold his own though.
In conclusion, this is an optional rule, and not for everyone but my group and I enjoy it greatly both from a mechanical standpoint and for flavor reasons. I hope this is of use for others.
He could use staves so he'll be restricted to lower-level spells (high level staves are a costly commodity, when you have already bought so many scrolls to copy spells from) and, after a fashion (or with some divination magic), easy to predict, as you can't change your staves at the beginning of the day.
With the current rules, however, you can make a mage duel work as you'd like to: take 2 wizards of the same level, something to boost caster level for abjurations and the Arcane Mastery feat - suddenly, whatever they cast will be countered with dispel magic by the other, no questions asked. And whoever wasn't so dedicated in his studies of abjuration magic will pay the consequences, even if he was of higher level. After all, heroes (PCs) have a tendency to go and fight against higher level foes, and they need a chance, if a tricky one.
1) Imagine your Big Bad Evil Wizard manages to counter your Sorcerer's Fireball. The Sorcerer is told he cannot cast spells AT ALL for 1 or more rounds. He's a Sorcerer, what the heck else can he do other than feel gimped for being a Sorcerer?
(Yes yes, he can aid another, attack with a ranged weapon, use an item...etc., but in all these cases, he's lost his primary class feature, all for having the nerve to use it.)
2) Saying a class is protected due to knowing their full spell list. I would think that knowing your full spell list, ala the Druid or Cleric is already much more powerful than having to learn individual spells. Punishing the less advantageous class is like increasing taxes for everyone but the wealthy.
The problems with counterspelling are many, but at its core, it's about advantage. Anyone who has played Magic: the Gathering seriously understands this concept. Case in point, Baron Worcestershire casts his Power Word: Nerf at the party.
Flamenco the Wizard could have, on his last action, readied an action to Counterspell. If it works, he traded his action for negating the PWN. Which means, his action is pretty much directly equal to casting a PWN of his own.
However, if Flamenco himself knows PWN, perhaps he could have simply cast a Suddendly Maximized PWN on his turn, BEFORE the Baron could use his own spell?
Resource Advantage is never gained in a 1 for 1 trade. It is gained only when your action trumps the opponent's.
The OP mentioned a system where, in theory, you could gain a 2 for 1 (or better trade off). The problems, as I said, were it risks having PCs doing nothing, and it leaves the more versatile casters unpunished at all. A Cleric, by that system, need never fear worse than a 1 for 1 trade.
In the above example, however, note that the advantage goes to the caster who has the weaker "nuke" or equivalent. For example, if Flamenco casts his Suddenly Maximized PWN, the Baron using his own PWN to counter, wins the exchange, because his action was better than a trade.
Unfortunately, it's hard to know when you should attempt this, since often you have no idea what the opponent can cast, and for you to ready an action (which may or may not do anything), then make a Spellcraft check to ID the incoming spell, then actually counter it with either the exact same spell, or a less useful Dispel Magic (or, possibly, a spell of the same School, with the right Feat).
That's a lot of if/then statements.
What's needed is a countermagic system that allows you to sacrifice a spell to counter *as needed*. For example, if a Fireball is lobbed, the Wizard would need to be able to decide "counter or respond with my own fireball"?
I think that all casters should have the option to make a swift action to make a Spellcraft spell upon seeing another spell being cast, and if they succeed, to decide then whether to let it go through or be countered.
With the condition, of course, that if you counter a spell, you suffer a penalty on your next turn (in this case, saying you cannot spell cast should be ok, since, in a way, you just cast a spell).
This would allow counterspelling to be more tactical, and less of a potential waste of time than just trading spells back and forth.
Once you counter a spell, it so jars your opponent that he is not able to cast arcane spells for a number of rounds equaling your caster level minus theirs for a minimum of one round. Therefore, if they are two levels lower than you, they can't cast a spell for two rounds. Note this does not prevent the use of staves and wands, making them indispensable in a wizard's duel.
I really don't like this part of the ruleset. A PC whose spell has been countered cannot cast spells. This is done without any type of skill check or saving throw. If I were to implement this optional rules I would remove this part. Or at least change it to a Concentration check. This also presents a major problem to part time casters such as rangers/paladins.
Lastly how does this interact with spell-like abilities? Can the monster use other spell-like abilities or is shut down for good?
It deals with tactical viability, since a dedicated countermage can burn low-level slots to stop an opponent's high-level spells, while retaining their own high-level resources for whenever they decide to go on the offensive.
It would look like this:
Counterspell
Abjuration
Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Drd 4, Pal 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target One spellcaster
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You can use counterspell to counter another spellcaster's spell. Counterspell cannot counter spell-like effects as it does spells. The spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike dispel magic, counterspell always works.
Once you counter a spell, it so jars your opponent that he is not able to cast arcane spells for a number of rounds equaling your caster level minus theirs for a minimum of one round. Therefore, if they are two levels lower than you, they can't cast a spell for two rounds. Note this does not prevent the use of staves and wands, making them indispensable in a wizard's duel.
I think that is really harsh. Essentially, most combats only last - at least in my experience - about ten rounds, easier combats are even faster.
Your typical BBEG usually has a CR equal to your average party level +3 or +4, meaning a spellcasting adversary can have about 3-4 more levels than the party mage (or worse, healer), making him essentially useless for half the combat, forcing him to do nothing for a while (or fire off his items, but that's not very fun either).
Furthermore, it doesn't make counterspelling better against higher level casters (which the party usually battles), making counterspelling a good tactic for the BBEG, but not better for the PCs. Not so good, at least in my opinion.
There should either be a better way to avoid it, either a save or opposed caster power check (d20 + caster level + casting stat-bonus), or - and I like this more - it should rather be a penalty:
If a spell is countered, the spellcaster who got his spell countered does not lose his spellcasting ability, but instead he has a penalty: He has -1 caster level and the casting time is doubled (standard action becomes full-round action). The duration depends on the difference of the caster levels:
Also depends on the master. My players try to use only core spells, feats, etc. so I also try to use them only. Of course, eventually we use a new spell/class/feat/item/etc... but counterspelling is easier, for them, and for me if we only use a couple of books and there’s no need to use every single book.
PS: Excuse me if I made some mistakes, improving English 1.0 in progress =D
Same spell (overrides other mods): +10.
Same subtype (fire, fear, cold, death): +4.
Same school: +2.
Opposed subtype (cold vrs fire): +4.
Difference between level of original and counterspell: varies, equal to difference.
Spells are subject to their respective ranges, so using touch spells to counter aoe's only works if the aoe is detonating from your own location or within 5' of it.
So a level 1 mage could use a burning hands (fire, level 1, 15' cone) to counterspell a level 5 mage's fireball (fire, level 3, 20' radius) at a net of +3 (+1 level, -2 spell level difference, +4 same subtype) against the standard dispel DC of 16 for a 5th level caster.
I also houseruled an addition to the delay action: a delaying character may attempt to interrupt the actions of another character, but must succeed on a private initiative roll-off against said character to do so. This makes counterspelling more attractive, as a character can delay, see an enemy casting, then attempt to counterspell if he can beat the enemy on a private initiative check. If no one casts anything that round, the character can come out of delay as normal and take his actions.
So far in my game a lucky roll allowed a burning hands to counterspell a cone of cold, which was incredible to describe and roleplay out, as was a wall of stone against a lightning bolt. Most of the time, it works out just fine though, with predictable success/failure ratios well within expected "balance" ratios. It does make Dispel Magic less attractive as a counterspell tactic, but still a solid choice for other purposes, and a good fallback in the event remaining spells wouldn't be very good choices. The upside, it's a fairly intuitive system that my less mechanically inclined players have had fun doing (cold versus fire, earth against air, metal against lightning).
In order to Counterspell, you need to ready an action to do so, make a spellcraft check, and cast a specific spell. If you muck up any of the three, you've wasted your turn. Even if you succeed, the enemy isn't hurt, just delayed. So you, knowing that your enemy is an enchanter, expect him to launch a Dominate Person early in the encounter. You ready an action to do so, try to hit the (not necessarily difficult) spellcraft check, and blow a Dominate Person.
Now, consider the alternative. Instead of readying an action to counterspell, you could have, say, readied an action to cast Lightning Bolt. Now it doesn't matter what spell he casts - either way, he's getting pelted in the face with a line of electricity. If he makes the save, he takes ~5d6 damage (avg 17) -- admittedly not a lot -- but he also then has to make a DC 27 Concentration check or else his spell fizzles. If he fails the save (the more likely scenario) he takes 10d6 (avg 35) and has to make a DC 45 concentration check or lose his spell. Either way, you're getting damage and making him probably lose his action, at the cost of a nonspecific spell slot of a lower level.
Granted, Lightning Bolt is hardly an optimal spell to be lugging around. On the other hand, Orbs of Force/Sound/Acid are only 4th level...
Or make it an opposed attribute check using the caster's respective scores and then no-spell-stunning for 1 round for every 5 points by which one roller wins.
Incidentally, I really like the idea of improving counterspelling. (and not just because I'm playing a wizard in a game at the moment) The main problem with it in it's current form is that you have to ready an action to counterspell and lose your turn if the caster doesn’t cast. Of course, an archer trying to disrupt a spellcaster has to make the same choice.
By way of comparison, a fighter trying to disarm a foe has some more leeway, especially if he has more than one attack.
Alternatively, you could continue the improvements started by Improved Counterspell by introducing a new feat:
Swift Counterspell [metamagic]
Prerequisite
Improved Counterspell
Benefit
You may now counterspell as a swift action.
Normal
See counterspell rules
:D
It allows you to counterspell as an immediate action: that is when it's not actually your turn.
Reflexive Counterspell [metamagic]
Prerequisite
Swift Counterspell
Benefit
You may now counterspell as an immediate action. Once per round, you may counterspell even if it is not currently your turn.
Normal
See counterspell rules
It's pretty powerful, but it's the 3rd feat in this chain. I feel like it's close to on par with spring attack, power-wise.
However, the solution proposed by the original poster is WAY too powerful, and it involves more math.
Your solution allowing counter spelling as a swift action is problematic, since swift actions can only be made on your turn, and readying is a standard action. You were probably thinking immediate action.
Your solution has actually been play-tested, and it's actually a lot more powerful than you'd expect. Magic of Faerun has a feat, "reactive counterspell" that allows one to perform their action out of order for counterspelling. "improved counter-spelling" was a prerequisite. By carefully choosing my sorcerer spells from various schools I was able to counter all but the most powerful spells. It proved so powerful that my DM disallowed reactive counterspell from future campaigns.
What you propose seems even more powerful since the disrupting caster keeps their standard action. If you're going to try that system, I suggest banning "improved counter-spelling".
As an alternative, I suggest this approach:
SUGGESTED HOUSE RULE: Counter-spelling requires that the counter-spell be ready (or available for spontaneous casters), however, counter-spelling does not actually expend a spell slot (using dispel magic to counter-spell a non-identical spell expends the spell slot as normal).
Rationale: Casting a spell correctly requires that every aspect of channeling magic be done correctly... however fizzling a spell requires only a single mistake in one aspect of spell-casting, therefore counter-spelling is much easier and requires less magical energy, because all that is required is to interrupt a single aspect of spell-casting.
I recently did up a Counter Magician Prestige Class while I was bored. I think it has potential to address some of the problems posed here.
The Shock of being countered is way too harsh as had been said before, and I think the reactive counterspelling as an immediate action is really really broken if your player knows what he is doing. DMS prepare your army of fighters trained in an antimagic field cause non of your npc wizards will ever get a spell off with that ability.
One thing that seems pretty common is the fact that people think the jarring is too harsh - I disagree and will try to better explain my reasons for it.
For example: If a wizard tries to counter another three levels lower and doesn't have the spell prepared he has only a 65% chance of succeeding. Assuming he does so he has used up double the spell levels (assuming he didn't use dispel magic) and had to use his previous turn to ready against it. There is a 35% chance he wasted a bunch of spell levels and his previous turn readying an action. His opponent is unable to cast for 3 rounds only assuming he is successful. That doesn't mean he is useless though - every wizard worth his salt should have a wand/staff etc., or even a scroll.
One thing of note is that if a wizard is fighting two casters he can only ready against one of them - the other gets through 100% of the time. Assuming both of those casters are three levels lower and ready an action against him - they would each have a 35% chance of preventing his casting and preventing him from casting for one round.
One advantage to this rule that I have noticed is that in situations with casters on both sides trying to counter each-other to gain the upper-hand, non-casters get to shine more at higher levels as the casters are too busy in mental struggles to toss out earth-shattering spells every round.
And yes, wizards will end up spending a larger portion of their funds on spells as opposed to items - but so what? It is well known that wizards are more powerful that warriors beyond the early levels, and them having fewer magic items would only help balance it.
I imagine counterspells should be like the battle between Queen Bavmorda and Fin Raziel at the end of the movie Willow (If you aren't familiar with it I highly recommend you watch it). If we made the right modifications we could keep from making the magic-user classes any more powerful, but create a visually and tactically exciting system for counterspells. I'm thinking both something that could be used flippantly against the lone orc shaman in the dungeon, but also something that could set the stage for epic battles between wizards. Just imagine: The party enters the heart of The Lich King's fortress/tomb and are immediately swarmed by undead. Ghouls, ghast, zombies, you name it. While the party cuts their way through the masses towards the throne the magic-user faces off in a battle of wits against the Lich's own spell casting power.
Now of course some would say that this would put the magic-user too much in the spotlight. However, using the previous example, the magic-user himself needs the rest of the party to defeat the ground troops and threaten the Lich, so that the magic-user isn't destroyed in the duel, while the other party members would need their magic-using companion to occupy the Lich magic-user, so he doesn't turn the tide of their battle. In this case it would be more of a bid for time. Like someone else pointed out earlier the BBEG has to have a CR at least equal to party level +3 or 4, so the magic-user shouldn't be able to defeat him on his own. All this new system would add is a more dramatic element and some good role-playing opportunities. If having magic-users duel during adventures doesn't appeal to you, then the system could at least be used to allow magic-users to challenge each other to duels.
I say all this, but really I have no idea how this could be put into practice within DnD rules. I just wanted to throw this concept out there as an alternative to the usual DnD counterspell. Or a counterspell spell
I'm going to try to figure out a system for it myself and I will post back here when I've got something, or if I find it just isn't a viable option. In the meantime I look forward reading more of your opinions on this thread in general.Just like dispel magic, (Or Magic the Gathering) you would have to judge the worth of having a counterspell in your arsenal to having another, better spell. Not to mention the spell being relatively useless out of combat with other mages.
I haven't put too much elaborate thought into this, but I'd like to see counter-spelling be an action, instead of a spell in it's own right. (and perhaps dispel, if you think the idea works)
Instead of preparing one of your daily spell slots for whatever explosive spell you'd normally choose, you can choose to fill the slot with the action "Counter-spell" thus a first level wizard gets let's say 3 lvl 1 spells per day or so, he'd prepare one of those as a counter-spell action instead of a spell.
the Counter-spell is a complex action, the basic version is a immediate action, allowing you to roll a caster level check against your opponant to defeat his spell. Note: counter-spell, unlike dispel, only prevents a spell from being put in place, not destroy it once it's active.
Now, a counterspell prepared in a level 1 slot can only counter level 1 spells as an immediate action. However, if you instead ready an action against a spellcaster to use your counterspell, it counts as 1 level higher than it is prepared for the purpose of counter-spell level. thus if a level 1 wizard effectively wastes his turn to counter a level 2 spell, it could work (he's still need to pass the caster level check of course.)
in the same idea, a 4th level slot counter-spell, used as a readied action instead of an immediate action can counter a 5th level spell.
(this particular rule is in place for BBEG fights, who's spells are regularly too strong for a normal abjurer to counter-spell since they're a few levels apart)
In addition, a higher level counter-spell slot can be used to counter a lower spell. thus if you prepared a counter-spell for level 3, you could use it to counter a level 3, 2, 1, 0, or 4 with a readied action.
You can of course prepare multiple slots with Counter-spell actions, thus you could have a level 1, 2, 3, and level 4 counter-spell prepared, provided you had the slots for it. However, it's not too often you face the need for that man counter-spells in a day.
For sorcerers and other spontaneous casters, you must prepare a number of Counter-spell actions just like a wizard would, thus if you have 3 level 3 spell slots per day you can choose to prepare a counter-spell in one of those slots at the beginning of the day. Since Counter-spell is an action, instead of a spell you can prepare the action at the start of the day (unlike your spells). Think of it like loading a gun, you can choose to load bullets (spells) or blanks (counter-spells).
Specialist wizards gain +2 with their chosen school at Counter-spelling their type of spell. however they take a -2 with against their prohibited schools since they are unfamiliar with the mechanics of those spells
counter-spell artists, abjurers most often, have various feats they can take to better counter-spell.
Improved counter-spell:
Your counter-spells count as 1 spell level higher for the purposes of determining what they can counter. (thus a level 1 counter-spell slot can counter level 2, 1, and 3 with a readied action. This applies to a number of your counterspells per day equal to your spellcasting ability score modifier (int for Wiz, Cha for Sor)
Potent Counter-spell:
you gain an additional +2 (or some such number) to your counter-spell check.
Emergency Counter-spell: once per day you can chance a single spell slot you have into a counter-spell, but it must be of a level 1 less than your highest level spell slot (thus if you have 4th level spells, you can do this to a 0,1,2 or 3rd level spell slot.)
Emergency Counter-spell retraction: Prereq: emergency counter-spell
Once per day you may change a counter-spell into another spell you have prepared of equal or lower level (improved counterpsell does not modify this feat)
Abjurers Focus: Prereq: Abjurer
You are no longer penalized by the -2 for Counter-spelling against your prohibited schools, in addition you gain an additional +2 on your own spells for the purposes of blocking them from being Counter-spelled.
Counter-Locked: [metamagic]
a spell modified by Counter-locked gains +10 vs being dispelled. add +1 or 2 (unknowned balance issues) to the level of the spell.
Spell focus:
the bonuses granted by this feat apply to both countering and defeating a counter on spells from the selected school as well.
Not that well written (or typed) but that's my idea.
Quite frankly, I think having a "Counterspell" spell line similar to the dispel magic line is probably the best solution. Same as dispel magic, but it's an immediate action, no Spellcraft check required, and well..you can't dispel spells already in place.
Just like dispel magic, (Or Magic the Gathering) you would have to judge the worth of having a counterspell in your arsenal to having another, better spell. Not to mention the spell being relatively useless out of combat with other mages.
You and Gemstone describe closely a system that's in place in one game I play. Counterspell is an actual spell that you memorize in place of a spell slot.The way counterspelling works is as follows:
-You must identify the spell being cast with a Spellcraft check. As an immediate action you may burn the same spell to automatically counter or attempt to counter with counterspells
-You decide on the number of counterspells to use against the spell. For each counterspell use you may make an opposed check (+Spell Level + Caster Level). The Spell Level for counterspell is the spell level you have it memorized at. All counterspells decided to be used are expended even if the first one was successful.
We also have rules in place for trying to obscure what spell you are actually casting. A combination of bluff and spellcraft.
How ever having read Shinryouga's ideas I'm considering altering it to have lower prerequisites and run with that system.
[House-rule feat]
Inventive counter spell.
Using your knowledge of magic you are able to use some spells to interfere with others. Not always do you need to target the casting of the spell to change the expected outcome of a spell.
Prerequisite: spell craft 12 ranks, improve counter spell , dampen counter spell or quicken spell.
Benefit: When you successfully resolve your spell craft check (DC 15 + spell level) You are able to cast a spell to alter another spells expected outcome. The exact nature of the change is up to the DM ruling. The countering spell can either go just before the countered spell to counter before the effects take place or just after to counter the expected result (normally a lower level spell must be caster after the original spell to lessen the effects of the higher level spell).
Some examples:
Any two spells that counter each others haste and slow as well as enlarge and reduce. Break enchantment vs alterations, curses and petrification.
Gust of wind being cast to counter a stinking cloud. Will not counter the initial save but will disperse it after a single round.
Wall spell vs fireball is going to leave a wall on the battle field as well as changing the point of detonation of the fireball.
Wall spell vs lightning bolt might not stop the lightning bolt if the wall is breached.
Cone of cold vs flame strike. The spells must over lap for at least some portion. Damage dice rolls the greater result of cold or heat is done.
Magic missile vs deep slumber to wound your allies after they fail their save.
The idea is to be creative and run ideas past your DM.
Quite frankly, I think having a "Counterspell" spell line similar to the dispel magic line is probably the best solution. Same as dispel magic, but it's an immediate action, no Spellcraft check required, and well..you can't dispel spells already in place.
Just like dispel magic, (Or Magic the Gathering) you would have to judge the worth of having a counterspell in your arsenal to having another, better spell. Not to mention the spell being relatively useless out of combat with other mages.
I agree that something like this would be the best solution. I would still have a dispel check, but give the counterspeller bonuses for things like identifying the spell, knowing the spell yourself, having the "Improved Counterspell (not the 3.5PHB one)" feat, etc. A spell like that could be as low as 2nd level, I think, with a cap on bonuses. Have a 4th or 5th level version that's upcapped, and a 7th or 8th that maybe stuns the enemy caster for a round.
And then you get into things like the Forceful Spell metamagic feat, which makes your spells hard to counter, and suddenly we've opened an entirely new form of battle. It might even start to balance casters!
Of course, sorcerers would get a big advantage; they just need to learn the right spell, and they can deny a wizard until he runs out of spells. I think that's a good thing, though, since sorcerers are terrible compared to wizards right now. They'd also be somewhat balanced by the counterspelling bonus of "knowing the enemy's spell", since a sorcerer is unlikely to know the specific spell, while a wizard has a good chance of having it in their spellbook.