-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Can contingency counter spell?
- Thread starter Postie
- Start date
Artoomis
First Post
No, contingency won't work:
1. True Seeing is 5th level - you'd need to be 15th level (3 times the level of the spell).
2. True Seeing as a counter-spell is not affecting you, a requirement of contingency.
What you need is the counter-spelling feat (sorry, the name escapes me) - that's the feat that lets youy counter-spell without a readied action. That's definately the way to go.
1. True Seeing is 5th level - you'd need to be 15th level (3 times the level of the spell).
2. True Seeing as a counter-spell is not affecting you, a requirement of contingency.
What you need is the counter-spelling feat (sorry, the name escapes me) - that's the feat that lets youy counter-spell without a readied action. That's definately the way to go.
SableWyvern
Hero
That would be Reactive Counterspell.
Artoomis
First Post
I think Improved Counterspell and Reactive Counterspell are great feats for the defensive mage who specializes in preventing the enemies spells from getting through.
I am assuming (without checking (always a bad thing) that Reactive Counterpsell costs you your next action, sort of like a reversed Readied Action.
Of course, for more fun an NPC bad guy or two should have these feats as well.
I am assuming (without checking (always a bad thing) that Reactive Counterpsell costs you your next action, sort of like a reversed Readied Action.
Of course, for more fun an NPC bad guy or two should have these feats as well.
kreynolds said:
Is the feat broken or is the counterspell action broken? I'm just asking because I see so many people confuse the two to the point that they don't even remember what they didn't like.
By the way. My mileage has been great with it.
It's the feat part that I don't like...
[DM]: the baddie launches a empowered/quickened fireball at you all... [starts collecting dice]...
[player #2]: now just hold your horses... even though I have just finished moving and casting a big spell also... I do have the reactive counterspell feat, so I dispel the fireball...
Why should a spellcaster be able to retroactively deal with something he isn't prepared for, but a non-spellcaster can't... This all comes back to the Reactive Attack house rule feat... and the fact that I wouldn't want either in my games... at least until I see the feats out of ELH (which was your point in that debate kr).
Last edited:
Magic Rub
First Post
mikebr99 said:
Why complian when it works both ways?
[player #2]: I launch a empowered/quickened fireball at the baddie... [starts collecting dice]...
[DM]: now just hold your horses... even though I have just finished moving and casting a big spell also... I do have the reactive counterspell feat, so I dispel the fireball...
Besides this you can only counterspell as long as you have the spells to do so. Making the spellcasters ever so precious & very limited arsenal deplete all the more rapidly. A Melee based PC/NPC would never run out of swings of the sword/axe/mace whatever, that's why there is no "reactive attack" feat, only AoO's.
Life sucks, then you learn to how play casters, then they die.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
