Can a Ring of Counterspells negate a Fireball?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

"Cast Upon" only equals "Affects" by quite a stretch it seems to me.

"Cast Upon" easily equals "Targetted" by using pretty much equivalent languge..

Well, "cast upon" certainly includes targetted.

I don't think that's all it includes, however. If that's all they wanted it to include, they've easily got the rules language to limit it to that: just say "targets."

They didn't, however, so assuming a stricter definition than what they wrote is not necessary.

 

[werk]

"Cast Upon" only equals "Affects" by quite a stretch it seems to me.

"Cast Upon" easily equals "Targetted" by using pretty much equivalent languge..

Then it's a good thing that they stated that it counterspells as per the counterspelling action, which does not have a 'targeted' requirement.

The target of the counterspell is actually the caster, not the spell itself.

I know, we're not playing magic...

 

[Borlon]

I would vote that it does protect from fireballs. I have several reasons:

• There has to be circumstances whereby what goes into the ring comes out again. Jack Smith points that out nicely.
• The spell used for the prerequisite (imbue with spell ability) is not spell turning, and so shouldn't have the limitations of spell turning.
• The mechanic referenced (counterspelling) makes no distinction between the two types of spells: a wizard can counterspell both targetted and area-effect spells. A ring of counterspells would logically be expected to do the same.
• If it were only limited to targetted spells, why didn't they say so?
• "Upon" is genereally interchangeable with "on" when it indicates a spatial relation between an action and an endpoint, but the endpoint can consist of more than one object. The meaning of "cast upon" is thus broader than "targetted at" and so the two phrases need not be taken as synonymous.

Besides logic, you also have to refer to game balance to adjudicate the effect of a magic item. In this case, it is a question of how much utility you should get for 4000 gp. Using a ring slot to be protected once from a fireball? That's not too bad. Still, it would be reasonable to say that the AoE of the spell has to be centered somewhere in the square occupied by the wielder. That limits the item a lot, but still addresses the reasons above. Just tell the wielder that the AI that runs the ring is awfully near-sighted.

 

[was]

I'd say yes, if the ring bearer is the original target. If the guy next to him is the target and he gets caught in the blast radius, then I'd say no.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'd say yes, if the ring bearer is the original target. If the guy next to him is the target and he gets caught in the blast radius, then I'd say no.

There's no such 'original target'. The original target, indeed the only target, is a grid intersection. The question is purely that if you are caught in the area, could the spell be said to be 'cast upon you'. The answer to that is the answer to the poll.

 

[Twowolves]

This same issue came up in my game, where upon discovering this ring, the party wizard thought it was a ring of spell storing, and promptly put a Color Spray in it. Since then, I have wondered what it would take to get that Color Spray spell back out, and if being in the cone would trigger the counterspell. Kinda like the Fireball question, but even sticker since it's a cone with no burst "target square" issue.

 

[Sledge]

Man this is just begging for a rules lawyer to try and use this to weasel out. "So my ring won't counterspell it eh? Good that means it's not cast on me. Must not affect me then. No damage!"

Seriously how would you described being affected by a spell which is targetted on a location, but has an area of effect? If not cast upon, then you can no longer say in common parlance, "I cast fireball on the orcs." If the spell affects them, you've cast it on them right?

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Seriously how would you described being affected by a spell which is targetted on a location, but has an area of effect? If not cast upon, then you can no longer say in common parlance, "I cast fireball on the orcs."

Just because you can say it and everyone will understand what you mean, that doesn't make it a correct description of what's happening. For example: "I'm gonna put my boot in your ass."

So, to answer your question (how would I describe...): "The orcs are within the fireball's area of effect." There, that wasn't hard.

 

[Sledge]

So you're not casting it on them?

 

[dcollins]

Seriously how would you described being affected by a spell which is targetted on a location, but has an area of effect?

Interestingly, we have an example of that in the rules for invisibility.

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

And of course we have the Targets-only language from spell turning:

The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells.

Yet the ring of counterspells doesn't use either of these language options.