Can a Ring of Counterspells negate a Fireball?

[dcollins]

Can a ring of counterspells negate a fireball spell? Assume that the ring is properly prepared (with a fireball spell), and that the wearer is caught within the the attacking fireball spell area, etc.

From the SRD:

Counterspells: This ring might seem to be a ring of spell storing upon first examination. However, while it allows a single spell of 1st through 6th level to be cast into it, that spell cannot be cast out of the ring again. Instead, should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action, requiring no action (or even knowledge) on the wearer’s part. Once so used, the spell cast within the ring is gone. A new spell (or the same one as before) may be placed in it again.

Moderate evocation; CL 11th; Forge Ring, imbue with spell ability; Price 4,000 gp.

- "Yes" Argument: The ring description says that the attacking spell is countered "as a counterspell action", and clearly a fireball can be counterspelled (in fact, it's an example of counterspelling in the PHB).

- "No" Argument: The ring description says the attacking spell must be "cast upon the wearer". For similar effects such as the ring of spell turning, this indicates the need to Target the spell on the defender, and as such area effects are specifically excluded.

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

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I said no although the wording does leave it somewhat ambiguous. I would treat it as having to target the wearer, quite like the ring of spell turning.

For instance, let's look at the fireball example.

The fireball spellcaster casts the fireball at a different target away from the counterspell ring wearer. However, the "pea" of the fireball makes contact with an object and explodes early as per the spell in the vicinity of the ring wearer. Can it be counterspelled at such a late stage? Does it make sense? Has the not the spell already taken effect making a counterspell impossible? Are there alternative views on this?

An interesting rules question - and may I say a handy and useful item. There is one thing one of my characters fears and this is being greater dispel magic'd. This cheap little ring saves goodness knows how many XP's worth of permanency stuff being purged from his person.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not sure where the ambiguity lies, honestly. The rules are very clear about what constitutes a spell "targeting" a specific person. Area effects don't qualify.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not sure where the ambiguity lies, honestly. The rules are very clear about what constitutes a spell "targeting" a specific person. Area effects don't qualify.

It's unclear as to whether 'cast upon' and 'targets' are synonymous.

A Scorching Ray doesn't target someone, but it's less clear as to whether it can be said to be cast upon them or not...

-Hyp.

 

[werk]

Voted yes. Cast upon is good enough for me.

"Instead, should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action, requiring no action (or even knowledge) on the wearer’s part."

The ring basically holds the spell ready to counter until the same spell is cast.

 

[glass]

I voted yes. IMO, if it meant 'targets' it should say 'targets'.

To the subsidiary question, also yes, assuming it was worded the same. Magic items do not necessarily work anything like their prerequisite spells.


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I voted yes. IMO, if it meant 'targets' it should say 'targets'.

That's pretty much the defining point. For things like spell storing, it is clear when the intent is 'targets'. Since the same designers wrote both spell storing (weapon) and ring of counterspells, they clearly intended a difference in the way the two items functioned. In other words, if they intended 'targeted' then they would have wrote 'targeted'. 'cast upon' is so much more generalized that not only should it work per the RAW, but per the intent.

 

[dcollins]

Well, that's, like, the closest poll I've ever seen on these messageboards: 42% to 58% (right now). That seems like a pretty major capacity of the ring of counterspells to be so ambiguous!

 

[lordcloaker]

Voted yes and in all my games its the 'yes' option in play. Its a more or less cheap ring, but there are always better rings to be found or bought. I see no problem in being protected from one spell once, and remember it has to be the exact spell and you have to be the target or in the area.
My groups stopped putting Fireballs and moved on to the best option around: Dispel Magic. With the 3.5 version that you roll caster lvl checks till one spell fades, it is the best option normally.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I voted no.

IMO, you need to be a target of the spell. Being in the area isn't enough. Otherwise, you could very well be conterspelling a comrade's Fireball, if he happens to aim badly.

AR

Edit: what did you vote, dcollins? In fact, I'd love to know what our most eminent rule lawyers (you know who you are...) think about the matter...