Can a Ring of Counterspells negate a Fireball?

[Jack Simth]

Well... if you can't, and you try, you have a very pretty mundane ring.....

Think about it - any one spell (within the spell level limits, of course) can be cast into the ring, but the only way to get it out is to have that same spell cast upon the wearer.... which is then dispelled. If the ring can't respond to dispel the fireball, well.... it's stuck in there.

 

[Alzrius]

Well... if you can't, and you try, you have a very pretty mundane ring.....

Think about it - any one spell (within the spell level limits, of course) can be cast into the ring, but the only way to get it out is to have that same spell cast upon the wearer.... which is then dispelled. If the ring can't respond to dispel the fireball, well.... it's stuck in there.

Another good point (along with the one Glass mentioned). The ring is meant to counterspell, and any spell can be counterspelled. Having the ring be limited to spells that specifically target the wearer making it far less useful.

 

[MerakSpielman]

My interpretation of the text would be that the individual would have to be the target of a spell for the ring to have an effect. However, in the spirit of making a cheap ring at least somewhat valuable, I'd probably allow it to counter the fireball.

But there is a bit of a sticky question here, though. If the ring counters the fireball, I would assume the fireball never goes off, and the rest of the party members are also unaffected. This makes the ring somewhat more powerful than it should be, if it can operate as a ring of area-of-effect-spell negation for the entire party. One person could carry a ring against Fireballs, the next could carry a ring against ice storm, another against lightning bolts, etc... Now the whole party is protected, as long as they stick together!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

... for the first shot, anyway.

 

[Artoomis]

Another good point (along with the one Glass mentioned). The ring is meant to counterspell, and any spell can be counterspelled. Having the ring be limited to spells that specifically target the wearer making it far less useful.

However, that is what the text says, now, isn't it?

 

[werk]

However, that is what the text says, now, isn't it?

NO, not exactly, the text is more general and is being applied very specifically.

 

[dcollins]

So now "Yes" has suddenly pulled ahead, 55% to 45%. Crazy

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...

Good question, I actually didn't vote in my own poll. My gut is telling me that when most of these kinds of powers get expanded verbiage, they end up looking like the spell turning power. That is, protections like Spell Resistance and spell turning need a spell to be Targeted on the protectee to get negated. Whereas those powers have existed since 1st Ed. (and thus gone through a long refining process), the ring of counterspells is new to 3rd Ed., so maybe the designer just didn't think to expand the description as much as it needs. Hence I sort guess the intent would be "No".

However, I want the answer to be "Yes" because I was looking for a dependable core-rules protection for a mass of troops against fireballs, et. al. (See this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=149509 ; thanks to Werk for suggesting this ring that I overlooked to begin with).

But then again if it's "Yes" it seems significantly powerful for the low cost, but if it's "No" it seems really hard to make use of. So I'm honestly really torn.

 

[Artoomis]

NO, not exactly, the text is more general and is being applied very specifically.

" Instead, should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer,"

Seem clear to me. A fireball cannot be "cast upon the wearer." End of story, really, I think.

I am very suprised by the split vote.

 

[werk]

" Instead, should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer,"

Seem clear to me. A fireball cannot be "cast upon the wearer." End of story, really, I think.

I am very suprised by the split vote.

Seems clear to me, 'cast upon' covers any spell that would affect the wearer rather than a spell where the wearer is the target. Else it would have specific wording, like spell storing weapons..."A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell ..."

 

[Artoomis]

Seems clear to me, 'cast upon' covers any spell that would affect the wearer rather than a spell where the wearer is the target. Else it would have specific wording, like spell storing weapons..."A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell ..."

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

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