Can a Ring of Counterspells negate a Fireball?

[IanB]

"Cast upon" is not a defined term in the rules.

"Counterspell" is.

In this case, I'm going to go with the ring working just like the counterspell action, since I have a definition for that as opposed to the 'cast upon' thing which has no rules traction.

So, yes, it can counter a fireball.

 

[Legildur]

...but if it's "No" it seems really hard to make use of...

The 10 Con Wizard in a campaign I play, with Phantasmal Killer cast into the ring, would probably beg to differ.

I voted 'No'. I think it would be overpowered to allow it to counter-spell area effect spells.

 

[Nail]

I can see the "wiggle room" in the use of the phrase "cast upon the wearer"....but I still voted no.

Two reasons:

• Then it's way too cheap for its price.
• Voting yes would lead to some weird situations, like counterspelling a Control Weather spell from an unknown druid a mile away, or counterspelling a Glyph of Warding cast eons ago, or counterspelling Spiritual Weapon when you are struck, or....

 

[Artoomis]

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?

I'd answer: "You cannot cast fireball on the orcs. You may, however, pick a location to cast fireball and include all the orcs within its area of effect."

In D&D terms, casting a spell ON someone is very different from including someone in an area of effect.

 

[wedgeski]

I can see the "wiggle room" in the use of the phrase "cast upon the wearer"....but I still voted no.

Two reasons:

• Then it's way too cheap for its price.
• Voting yes would lead to some weird situations, like counterspelling a Control Weather spell from an unknown druid a mile away, or counterspelling a Glyph of Warding cast eons ago, or counterspelling Spiritual Weapon when you are struck, or....

Quoted for being the exact same two reasons I voted 'No'.

 

[Borlon]

Isn't Control Weather a 7th level spell?

Anyway, just let the ring be "nearsighted"- it only counterspells area effect spells centered on/originating from a grid intersection in or adjacent to the wearer's space.

That is practically a "no" but at least if someone casts fireball into the ring, you can get it out again. And who knows, maybe someone will center a fireball on you.

This limits its utility enough that it won't be underpriced, and satisfies a broader sense of "cast upon" without being too broad.

 

[Testament]

If it meant targets, it'd say targets. It doesn't say targets, so it works, as though it was a counterspell action.

 

[MerakSpielman]

This is a good debate, and highlights the importance, when writing rulebooks, to use commonly agreed-upon terms. The problem we're having is, ultimately, that the description was written in English, not D&D Rulespeak.

I'd heartily suggest, since you're going to do this anyway, that you simply decide the way it's going to work for your game, and make sure you tell players before they purchase such a ring so they know exactly how it will work.

But, for argument's sake, by all means let's continue the debate.

Earlier I stated that, strictly speaking, rules-wise, it shouldn't apply to an area-of-effect spell. However, upon re-reading the ring description, it does SPECIFICALLY say that the ring functions exactly as a counterspell action. To use the Counterspell action does not require that the spell be targetted upon you. Strictly speaking, the counterspell action doesn't even require you to be in the intended area of effect of the spell. However, the wording of the ring description leads me to believe that, should you be in any way within the area of effect of a spell, the appropriate spell will be withdrawn from the ring as a counterspell action - i.e., the original spell will simply not go off, just as if you had readied an action to counterspell it. The advantages of the ring are that you don't even need to know that the opponent is casting the spell - the ring takes care of it.

I don't think this overpowers the item, since, honestly, the odds of being hit by the exact spells with which you've loaded the ring are pretty slim. And you can't change your mind and swap out spells it contains! So if you stick a few fireballs in it, and you realize you're going up against a cult of lighting wizards, you're just out of luck.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Question to anyone voting "Yes": Would it be different in 3.0 where the prerequisite for this ring was in fact spell turning?

I never answered this. No, it wouldn't be different because the prerequisites do not in any way adjudicate the item unless the prerequisite coincides with the description and is specifically mentioned (e.g. winged boots of flying).

Then it's way too cheap for its price.

To all who agree with this reason for voting no, let me point out two things. (1) This point is totally irrelevent with respect to the rules. You are basically voting your emotion and not the rule. (2) If you claim someone is 'way too cheap' (dare I rephrase it as unbalanced?) you really need to back that up. I disagree with that assertion. In fact, I'd say quite the opposite that by voting no you are making the ring too weak for its price.

My players, and I as a player, use these rings quite frequently in our games and even by voting Yes it is nowhere near unbalanced. I repeat, nowhere near. I'd say that by our 'extensive' playtesting (I did say we use them quite frequently), I think they'd be better priced at 3000gp. By far and away the best spell to put in the ring is either dispel magic or greater dispel magic. In either case, it's a one-time event and very rare at that. You basically spend your 4000gp and hope and pray that you get targeted with the spell you chose.

 

[IanB]

In addition there's the opportunity cost of not wearing some other ring in there with a broader or more constant effect. As a DM, I don't think this is a big problem.