What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 10 of 34
Thread: Counterspell Idea
Monday, 24th September, 2012, 06:33 AM #1
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
I don't think counterspell should be a spell at all. It should just be a type of action that any spellcaster can take. For example:
Counterspell: As a reaction, you can attempt to counterspell a spell being cast by a creature within 50 feet of you. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster's. If you win, the spell has no effect. If you beat the caster's check result by 10 or more, you can reflect the spell back upon him, as if you had cast the spell and the original caster was the primary target. On your next turn, you cannot take an action.
To take this action, you must expend a prepared spell or unused spell slot of equal or higher level of the spell being countered or an equal number of Willpower points (you know how powerful the spell is once you choose to take this action). If you are a warlock, you can expend an unused favor instead, but only if your warlock level is at least twice the level of the spell being countered. If you don't have a powerful enough spell or enough Willpower points, you can't attempt to counter the spell, but you don't lose your next action.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 24th September, 2012, 07:17 AM #2
The problem w/ easy counter-spells is that it's far easier for a DM to wind up locking down the PC casters than vice-verse. I noticed this problem last campaign I ran (the WotBS w/ cleric Inquisitors who could re-actively expend a Turning attempt to Dispel Magic). Now, the Inquisitors worked given the theme of the campaign and when used sparingly. But I know it would have been frustrating/not-fun for the party caster if he was locked down anytime they ran into any caster.
Prior to my experience w/ easy counter-spelling, I thought like you did and that counter-spelling should be easier. After that, I see some wisdom in making counter-spelling limited, but effective.
De gustibus non disputandum est
Monday, 24th September, 2012, 08:29 AM #3
Defender (Lvl 8)
I hadn't given counterspelling much thought. It never got used much in my games, so it doesn't really ping very strongly when I brainstorm about DDN stuff.
Off the top of my head, the way that DDN handles different casters by giving them fairly different casting mechanics may put an end to the idea of the universal "counterspell". If my warlock gets access to an at-will counterspell, he probably shouldn't be able to spam it against a wizard until she has none of her daily spell slots left.
Monday, 24th September, 2012, 10:01 AM #4
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Counterspell should NEVER be an at-will ability under any circumstances. If a warlock or other at-will caster type gets it there still needs to be a usage limit, and a pretty harsh one. Otherwise any spell battles that ever arise will quickly turn into very boring games of counterspelling. (the simplest answer, of course, is to make sure counterspell is something that is simply never available to at-will caster classes)Originally Posted by slobster
Lan-"and if you're foolish enough to allow counterspells to target counterspells you'll get no sympathy from me for the train wreck that follows"-efan
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *DM: Telenet 1984-1994, Riveria 1995-2007, Decast 2008 -->* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Monday, 24th September, 2012, 06:06 PM #5
Defender (Lvl 8)
I'm not advocating that system for DDN, mind you, just pointing out a counterspell system that works (from experience).
But matching up at-will counterspelling with resource-based, exhaustible spells is a problem, because then your action denial is also resource destruction, and all of a sudden the counterspell action is far too powerful.
Monday, 24th September, 2012, 11:21 PM #6
Guide (Lvl 11)
I don't know, I think the main thing is that traditional counterspelling has all the issues that other action-denying abilities have. That is, they can lead to stun-locks on the one-hand or lots of wasted turns on the other. The risk-reward analysis is pretty tricky, especially if there are multiple sources of counterspelling. I mean, if I'm going to spend my action to counterspell I'd want to have a decent chance to actually deny the other caster their turn. But if 3 casters can counterspell, they can almost certainly lock-down a single caster.
Instead, I think it would be better to reorient counterspelling toward "spell dampening." Then it is more likely to do something, much less likely to completely negate a spell, and potentially a lot more scalable when multiple casters are involved. Find an elegant expression for this and we could probably also put spell disruption back into the game using the same principles.
In 3.5 one could almost do this by reducing caster levels by a variable amount, but the importance of caster level was sufficiently inconsistent between spells that it didn't quite work and at low levels it was still pretty binary. I ended up writing an alternate bard with a bardic song that introduced the least frustrating counterspelling I saw in 3.5. The song itself was useful and one could end the song to try to counterspell, so it didn't cost an action in the usual sense but also couldn't be spammed. It came in quite handy for the bard a few times in the campaign.
In 5e I'm not sure how to go about it, but "impede the other guy's spellcasting" is such an obvious (and fictionally iconic) thing to try that I think it might be worth looking at the entire spell system with that in mind. If every spell had a roll to determine it's power (as some magic systems do) that would be straightforward, but it wouldn't be D&D. Given the diversity of systems and effects, maybe the thing to do is make it a la carte: at time of counterspell select one of minimize k dice, give targets a small boost on saves, give caster penalty on related checks, adjust hit point thresholds by kd6, etc. That might also be an ungainly mess if there isn't a very simple way to communicate what happens and move on. Just tossing out ideas.
Monday, 24th September, 2012, 11:47 PM #7
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Counter spell as suppression?
Reducing damage, or area, or save bonus .... Problem is it uses the action, unless like combat superioty wizards have an action pool where counter spell is sat as reaction by spending for it in the spell somehow ... Maybe, taking a 4 th level spell slot lets the wizard cast the spell as a 3 rd level spell, but also have a reaction to counter spell as a 3 rd level spell as a reaction during the scene ...
Narrative based, the wizard saves some of the power of the spell to disrupt enemy casters....
Tuesday, 25th September, 2012, 02:53 AM #8
Guide (Lvl 11)
Suppression, yep. We could move away from counterspelling requiring a major action, because that has been part of the problem. We already have abilities in 5e where one can do something special when taking an action, so that could be one promising avenue. A more comprehensive suppression might take an entire action while still avoiding the negation or nothing gamble, and it is just one option in a spectrum. As long as the effects can be applied easily, one can dream up 1000 ways for how they occur. That is a very different from traditional stances, where counterspelling is a procedure first and foremost.
For example, maybe one form of counterspell would be usable every round after casting a spell, giving a moderate reduction in the effective level (or whatever) of a spell of the same school as that just cast. Like a wizard could remove nd6 damage from his fireball, but be able to spend that to suppress other evocation effects. That incentivizes the enemy to avoid evocation effects or softens the impact of an enemy cone-of-cold, but it isn't a hard counter.
Creating interesting trade-offs for oneself and the enemy is what I want from counterspelling. At a basic level I think the art of the mage duel is influencing the enemy to cast the spell he doesn't want to cast, and counterspelling should be an important tool in that toolbox.
Tuesday, 25th September, 2012, 06:48 AM #9
Greater Elemental (Lvl 23)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Planet Alcatraz & D/FW
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Ignore Dannyalcatraz
Tuesday, 25th September, 2012, 07:11 AM #10
Defender (Lvl 8)
You could also have at-will counterspell options that interface with resource-based spells in the same way that the current playtest deals with any other interrupted spell. You lose the spell, but not the slot that would have been used to cast it.
That way it is action denial, but not the super-effective kind. You give up an action, you deny one of theirs, and that's it. No destruction of their limited resources.
I would also have the counterspell be an unsure thing, that is you have a chance to fail and their spell still gets through.
Makes counterspelling into a soft action denial option that is only really useful against enemy casters who are about to really unleash the hurt. The rest of the time you are probably better off just casting a spell of your own. And I think that's about where I want it to be; playing the dedicated counterspeller sounds about as exciting as playing the healbot, so I don't want to encourage that build.