Can a Ring of Counterspells negate a Fireball?

[Artoomis]

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)?

Okay, that's some evidence, yes. It's still wrong. As written, a spell MUST be cast "upon" you and that's means targetting you in D&D rules - too bad that chose not to use the correct term. It's a shame.

As for how to get out an invalid spell (like fireball), well, you can't. But there's no reason you can't "overwrite" it with a valid choice (like Dispel Magic).

 

[Nail]

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.

Not at all. The rules ask us to determine a magic item's price by comparing it to other items. That is to say: an item's price is a measure of its power. How is pointing out it's "too cheap if the broader definition is used" irrelevant?

(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.

Now this, as you say, is debatable.

The primary use for this ring is for automatic countering of Dispel Magic (or Greater). If that were the ring's only power (1/day), I'd still say it's underpriced as listed. YMMV, but in our game, buff spells are very common, including ones from low CL magic items.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Not at all. The rules ask us to determine a magic item's price by comparing it to other items. That is to say: an item's price is a measure of its power. How is pointing out it's "too cheap if the broader definition is used" irrelevant?

You merely said it's too cheap. You did not compare it to any other item. If you provided a comparison that shows it's too cheap, I missed it, but I'd definitely be interested in seeing it. I can't think of a single comparative example, though.

Now this, as you say, is debatable.

The primary use for this ring is for automatic countering of Dispel Magic (or Greater). If that were the ring's only power (1/day), I'd still say it's underpriced as listed. YMMV, but in our game, buff spells are very common, including ones from low CL magic items.

The problem with the ring is that you have to pick a single spell and go with it. It's useful at best 1/encounter. It's only useful for the remainder of the day if you or an ally have another spell to cast into the ring. Regardless of what spell you choose, the ring will have a chance to be effective only in those encounters versus spellcasters. And, in those encounters, you have to be a 'victim' (re: cast upon) of the specific spell. I'll leave you, O Master of Statistics (and I truly mean this in a good way ) to figure out the odds of the ring actually being useful. IME, the ring has not been as effective as your previous statement would lead one to believe. Sure, it's great when you auto-counter that targeted greater dispel magic, but it sucks when you get targeted with a greater dispel magic spell-like ability.

 

[werk]

I think it might have been posted previously in this thread, but how would the ring of counterspells work with magic missile? Specifically if someone casts magic missile and only assigns one of several missiles at the wearer.

Does the ring counter the missle that was targetted at the wearer or does it counter the whole spell, as per counterspelling?

If it counters the whole spell, how? The wearer was only targeted with one missle, not the whole spell...

 

[Bagpuss]

Also if it a case of "No" then what happens when someone casts a spell into it that can't be countered. As according to the description there is no way to get the spell out without it countering something. Have the players just turned it into a piece of junk?

 

[dcollins]

Response from Monte Cook

Monte Cook has graciously responded to a pair of emails from me. His answer to this question is "No", that is, "cast upon = targeted", and that in RttToEE Thrommel's ring of counterspells (fireball) is an error.

Monte, I'm wondering if you could help with a quick question I've asked a lot of people to no resolution. In the D&D DMG, is the "ring of counterspells" supposed to negate only Targetted spells, or can it protect against Area spells, too? The wording is fairly ambiguous, saying that it counters anything "cast upon the wearer".

Thanks for any help!
- Dan C.


Dan,

Technically, area spells aren't cast on a person, they're cast on the area that the person is in, so "cast upon the wearer" means any spell that specifically targets the wearer. So magic missile, charm person, or baleful polymorph all work, but fireball doesn't.

Monte

Monte, thanks. In RttToEE, Thrommel has a "ring of counterspells (fireball)", was that an error?
- Dan C.

Yes, it is.
Monte

 

[werk]

 

[Artoomis]

RE: Mote Cook;s response.

Well, duh. Cast upon = targetted.

 

[Bad Paper]

ohhhboy is my DM gonna be angry about this Thrommel bit

But here is a question that popped into my mind: What happens when a fireball bursts in an area containing two people wearing Rings of Counterspelling charged with Fireball? Do both of them counterspell it, essentially allowing the caster of the FB to empty both rings simultaneously?

What if we make the ring of counterspelling only negate the effects of the spell on the wearer? Like it protects me (and only me) from this one particular fireball, or this one magic missile?

 

[Borlon]

I don't think that Monte is an authority on the meaning of the word "upon", but I suppose he knows what he meant to convey by that word, and that meaning is better conveyed by the word "targetted". I would still allow a ring of counterspells to counterspell a fireball, but only if the AoE spell were centered on a grid intersection on or adjacent to the caster. At the very least it would allow spells cast into the spell to be replaced.

@Bad Paper: If an incoming fireball is counterspelled by two wizards, then yeah, each will have lost a spell preparation to the same fireball. A ring would be no different (under my interpretation).

Question: If the rule says one thing, and the designer says (in a private e-mail) that he meant something else, which has priority? I'd normally say the former. But if a rule has term not defined in the rules ("cast upon") I'd prefer a reading that uses game terms (like "targetted"), which pulls me in the opposite direction.