The Negator; the Spell-Breaker; The Mage-Slayer...

[Mengu]

Was this directed at my post, or the topic in general? I wasn't sure from context.

Just the topic, not your post, sorry.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What is counterspelling?

If you look around, there are all kind of ways to disrupt magic in games AND in literature- negation of the spell (does not work at all), disruption of the spell (spell doesn't work properly/misses intended target), spell-breaking (dispels/Spell resistance/"shrugging it off"), magic supression (anti-magic/dead magic zones), immunities, wards and more.

What's more, those can all be implemented as active or passive defenses...or as offensive tactics.

 

[GX.Sigma]

In 3e, dispel magic could be used as a counterspell (but you had to make a dispel check against the spell).

Would that work?

 

[Stormonu]

I'd like to see "counter spelling" be embedded into the skill portion of the game, instead of discrete spells. Something like this:

The PC wizard readies an action to counter the magic of the goblin witch doctor. The witch doctor begins to cast the spell. The wizard and witch doctor make opposed rolls to gain control of this magic. If one wins by a lot, he gets his way. For closer results (say within 5 points of a tie), the two are now locked into a fight for the magic, and the round moves on to everyone else. When the wizard's turn comes around (in Next, now immediately before the witch doctor), he can drop the counter attempt or continue it. If he continues, the witch doctor can continue the casting or abandon it for some other action (but not casting a new spell).

If the wizard grabs control of the spell, he can then turn it back onto the witch doctor or drain it for some other benefit or strangle it out entirely. If he does more than try to strangle it, though, the witch doctor gets to fight back, as the control doesn't get acted upon until next round.

So starting a spell in the vicinity of hostile casters is like pulling out a slippery hand grenade. You never really know what is going to happen.

To make it even more interesting, the opposed skill check is based on the casting stat of the initiated magic. When a cleric casts, any countering is based on Wis checks. A wizard can try, but is typically at a disadvantage countering a cleric, and vice versa.

I like this - its sort of like a wrassling contest for spellcasters.

However, the spell or effect being countered has to factor into the check too as well - I'm not comfortable with a 1st level wizard countering an opposing Meteor Storm with a straight up Int vs. Int check. There should probably also be spell slots involved or it becomes too advantageous to shut a spellcaster down while not losing your own spells (if it's an immediate action, there's no reason NOT to do it).

And Shidaku has a strong point as well - Lockdownfests are no fun; they're as bad as stunlocks.

Perhaps the spellcaster, as their action, has to throw a sort of "snare" at the enemy spellcaster, giving up their action for the chance to counterspell. If you further bake in some sort of daily/encounter limit, it becomes a viable tactic, but not something that will dominate play.

For martial characters grappling and/or some sort of "disruptive strike" ought to handle the same precept. You attack on your turn, but the spell disruption effects happen on the target's turn - so it's a delay/interrupt that isn't.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Dispel Magic aside, I'd say that allowing a caster to burn a spell of equivalent level to use as a counterspell might be the right balance of simple and manageable, though you'd have to figure out the interrupt mechanic -- whether a readied action, a feat that allows an immediate action, or some other method.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Bear in mind that an NPC's daily-use spell and a player's are not equivalent resources. The NPC is only going to have one encounter. Ever.

If burning one of your spells to prevent the consequences of an enemy spell is better than using that spell to do what it was designed to do, then that means you're fighting enemies with more dangerous spells than yours, which means you're either in over your head or you have the wrong spells for the situation.

I'd prefer to have countering be an Int (Arcana) or Wis (Divine) contest that doesn't cost a spell but does use up your next action.

 

[nomotog]

MTG has a very robust counter system. I wonder why they haven't done a system like that in D&D.

 

[Umbran]

MtG has a robust counterspelling system, because in that game, all anyone really does is cast spells of one form or another.

In D&D, your basic counterspell really should be more in the rock-paper-scissors line: have the fighter go up and bash the mage's face in, and see how well he can manage verbal components while digging his nose out of his sinuses.

 

[Stormonu]

MtG has a robust counterspelling system, because in that game, all anyone really does is cast spells of one form or another.

In D&D, your basic counterspell really should be more in the rock-paper-scissors line: have the fighter go up and bash the mage's face in, and see how well he can manage verbal components while digging his nose out of his sinuses.

Which is fine, until you have your non-standard party mix. It'd be nice for the spellcasters - especially the wizard, who's gonna suck with some weapon - to have a way to counter a foe using their own element. I'm all for a wizard putting a big ol' VETO on an enemy wizard every once in a while. And the two clerics jostling in a battle of "whose god is mightier" for whose going to get their spell off and who is going to get smacked with a bolt from above (or a claw from below).

 

[Harlock]

I agree with this. The fiction of spell casting (especially for Wizardy-types) suggests the need for hand-waving and saying the magic words.

In my mind, grapple should be able to prevent the first and some "throat punch" type ability should be able to prevent the second. After all, you can't very well cast a spell (or at least the one you intended) by saying "Klaatu barada nikt-OOF!"

But then doesn't that lead to a "non-verbal" spell ability or non-kinetic spell ability? All of that, for lack of a better term, feat-bloat, just leads to unnecessarily more involved and longer combat. I'd much rather cut out the middle man, so to speak, and just roll to hit against a defense (AC or Save) and possibly damage. Simple, elegant, fast, easy!

Of course, I know some people really like fussy rules and extra rolls to add "verisimilitude" to combat. It's just that I find more verisimilitude through narrative and interaction rather than declaring this feat against that feat which allows this reaction ability that can be countered by that reaction and all of the dice rolling in between which interrupts the flow of a player's description.

Yes, my opinion is no better than anyone else's, but I feel better having expressed it nonetheless.