Dampen Spell Feat, PHB II pg 78... what if...

[magnusmalkus]

What if the target spell you are trying to dampen does not offer a Save Vs. DC #? Such as no-save spells... or ranged touch attack spells? Do you think it would be safe to house-rule that spells such as that would just go *pop*? Or should the feat (which required Improved Counterspelling) only apply to spells that offer a save?

Thanks folks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I believe the intent of the feat was that it has no effect on spells that do not allow a save.

It's hardly an overpowered feat, so if some DM wanted to add an effect (say, a like penalty to touch attacks) to cover more spells, he wouldn't be out of line in doing so.

 

[delericho]

I believe the intent of the feat was that it has no effect on spells that do not allow a save.

Yep. If there's no save, you can't reduce the DC!

It's hardly an overpowered feat, so if some DM wanted to add an effect (say, a like penalty to touch attacks) to cover more spells, he wouldn't be out of line in doing so.

Agreed on this as well - counterspelling is generally a poor option, and this feat (and its prerequisite) are likewise quite weak. So beefing up the feat probably wouldn't hurt.

I'd be inclined to apply the same penalty to touch attacks as to the save DC (as the design intent, I believe, was for the touch attack and the save to be rough equivalents). I might even consider a house rule whereby if you use a counterspell of one level lower than the target spell, it turns that "no save" spell into a "save negates" spell - but, having said that, if the target of the spell also has some effect whereby he would automatically succeed on the save, I wouldn't let that apply!

Note though that that's just off the top of my head - there may well be balance issues, and it's certainly well within the realm of house rules!