Can a Ring of Counterspells negate a Fireball?

[Artoomis]

Disregarding all other arguments about game balance, price, etc., the only real question is if you are caught in the area effect of a fireball, was that firball cast "upon" you.

To me, the obvious answer is no. Yes, it's regrettable they did not use the term "targetted," but it seems pretty clear that "upon" does not equal "within the area of effect."

 

[Testament]

Disregarding all other arguments about game balance, price, etc., the only real question is if you are caught in the area effect of a fireball, was that firball cast "upon" you.

To me, the obvious answer is no. Yes, it's regrettable they did not use the term "targetted," but it seems pretty clear that "upon" does not equal "within the area of effect."

And it seems pretty obvious to me that if they meant targeted, they'd have said targeted. And I'd say yeah, being caught in a fireball pretty much equals having fireball cast upon you.

It says it works as a counterspell action. You can counterspell non-targeted effects.

 

[RigaMortus2]

And it seems pretty obvious to me that if they meant targeted, they'd have said targeted. And I'd say yeah, being caught in a fireball pretty much equals having fireball cast upon you.

It says it works as a counterspell action. You can counterspell non-targeted effects.

The way I see it, once fireball explodes into flame, the spell has already successfully been cast, it is too late to counter. You would have to counter it at the "ball the size of a pea streaming from the caster's finger" part of the spell. And since that can not be directly aimed at anyone, it can't be countered. On the other hand... if the "pea" were to somehow deteonate because it hit a barrier (that being the person with Ring of Counterspelling on) I can see how it might be countered, but I am not sure that is possible within the rules.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The way I see it, once fireball explodes into flame, the spell has already successfully been cast, it is too late to counter. You would have to counter it at the "ball the size of a pea streaming from the caster's finger" part of the spell. And since that can not be directly aimed at anyone, it can't be countered. On the other hand... if the "pea" were to somehow deteonate because it hit a barrier (that being the person with Ring of Counterspelling on) I can see how it might be countered, but I am not sure that is possible within the rules.

Then would you describe the action of normally counterspelling a fireball? The ring takes care of you. You don't need to know. You could be caught flat-footed in a surprise round and it'd still protect you. For this reason, it seems preferable to look at it like a contingency spell (which, conveniently, also has a 6th level spell limit). In your example, why not interpret as "The wearer WOULD have be harmed by the fireball (ie, it was cast ON him. Which means, he was in the radius. No text to say any more restrictive situation.), the ring pre-emptively counters the spell, and the fireball fizzles away just before it should have detonated." See? That works fine. Oh, and obviously I voted yes. Fireball's good enough already without making one of the few guaranteed protections from it worthless. Think it's unfair? Just cast it again next round. Problem solved.

 

[Bront]

I voted no, because it can't in the technical way the rule is written, but the spirit of the item is Yes, it is an acceptable use

 

[RigaMortus2]

Then would you describe the action of normally counterspelling a fireball? The ring takes care of you. You don't need to know. You could be caught flat-footed in a surprise round and it'd still protect you. For this reason, it seems preferable to look at it like a contingency spell (which, conveniently, also has a 6th level spell limit). In your example, why not interpret as "The wearer WOULD have be harmed by the fireball (ie, it was cast ON him. Which means, he was in the radius. No text to say any more restrictive situation.), the ring pre-emptively counters the spell, and the fireball fizzles away just before it should have detonated." See? That works fine. Oh, and obviously I voted yes. Fireball's good enough already without making one of the few guaranteed protections from it worthless. Think it's unfair? Just cast it again next round. Problem solved.

Well the reason is this... How does the ring know you are going to be caught within the area effect of the spell until it has already happened? It doesn't... If someone shoots a fireball near me (selects a point on the grid near me), and the flames spread out 20 feet and just miss my 5' square, the ring certainly wouldn't counter that. Now what if the same spell was aimed at the same grid point, but was metamagced by a Widen Spell feat? How would the ring know the difference before it is too late? I would agree, if there was a way to counter fireball before it bursts into flames, then yes the ring would work. But I don't see how the ring would know what the area of effect is before it is too late.

 

[Thanee]

I'd say it applies to all spells cast upon the wearer.

No, really!

IMHO, spells cast upon the wearer include targeted spells targeted at the wearer and effect spells aimed at the wearer, even if they have multiple recipients, but not area spells, which happen to include the wearer, or touch spells, even if they are targeted.

Bye
Thanee

 

[dcollins]

I guess someone in another thread pointed out that Thrommel in RttToEE has a ring of counterspells loaded with fireball. Since Monte Cook wrote both that adventure, and (theoretically) the 3.0 DMG with its magic section and its new items, that would be some evidence of designer intent for it to work in the "Yes" manner, I guess?

Can anyone confirm that it's RttToEE that has a ring of counterspells (fireball)?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Can anyone confirm that it's RttToEE that has a ring of counterspells (fireball)?

Yes.

 

[dcollins]

Interesting, thanks!