Can a Ring of Counterspells negate a Fireball?

[seans23]

ohhhboy is my DM gonna be angry about this Thrommel bit

yeah, RTTTOEE spoilers are everywhere. In this case, they must be talking about something that happened during the Battle of Emridy meadows, because the current whereabouts of Prince Thrommel are UNKNOWN. Please repeat this to yourself 23 times.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes
precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources
involves book and topic precedence. The Player's
Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing
the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class
descriptions. If you find something on one of those
topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the
Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's
Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is
the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the
primary source for topics such as magic item
descriptions, special material construction rules, and so
on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for
monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural,
extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

I appologize for the crappy formatting (I'm at work, and don't have a long break). This rule says that whenever two rules disagree, the primary source is always correct. Between a book and an email from a designer, this would have to be the book.

An important distinction to make, however, is whether or not the two are in disagreement. In this case, I find the rules to be rather ambiguous (and as such, Monte's ruling can be in agreement with them, and Monte's ruling can be used as correct). I'm sure there could be a lengthy discussion on this if people want to do so.

 

[Thanee]

So, what about effect spells then, i.e. Disintegrate?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, you're futzed there, too, Thanee.