Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 9219875" data-attributes="member: 2013">As mentioned above, I have no issue with holding a ranged or spell attack to disrupt an enemy caster. I generally don’t have a problem with a player that also wants to take the Mage Slayer feat though I think it is limited for all the reasons others have suggested and as long as you allow interruptible spells I don’t find it a “mandatory” feat for a martial by any means.This is a very good point. Casting has become much safer for the caster over the years. One supposes the meta game reason for this is players of casters are more risk averse but an in world explanation would be that over 40 years of study, more would be learned about magic and it would be come much more reliable, if less exciting (think of the first 40 years of development of, say, electricity where it went from a somewhat dangerous commodity that was not well understood to something that is mostly safe, understood and reliable, if a little less boundary-pushing).Good question. Like any other spell, you get a Knowledge:Arcana check to recognize it, though if the check fails, it is very likely to be guessed as the spell you name when you declare your own Counterspell since you are reacting to a reaction and only a few spells can be cast as a reaction (e.g., Shield).Remember too that I allow situational substitution of spells for counterspells and I require you to name the spell you wish to counter. I should note that I in all situations I happen to count “Dispel Magic” among spells with “Offsetting effects” that can be substituted in for Counterspell proper per my substitution rules, so a dedicated Counterspeller in my campaigns usually knows both Dispel Magic and Counterspell so as to force opponents onto a 50-50 guess at best to Counter the Counter.Similarly, if I am using the offsetting spells variant (e.g., using a Fireball as a Counterspell to nullify an Ice Storm), anyone attempting to Counter the Counter has to name the actual spell being used (to continue the example in this paragraph, the would be Counterer of the Counterspell must name “Fireball” and not “Counterspell” as the target).To wit:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mage A casts Ice Storm.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mage B recognizes (or guesses) Ice Storm and casts Fireball to counter it (DM adjudicates this is an appropriate spell to use to counter due to elemental opposition) naming “Ice Storm” as the spell to be countered; naming any other spell does not interrupt Mage A’s cast.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mage C casts Dispel Magic as a counter spell to Mage B‘s casting action (DM adjudicates this is an appropriate spell to use to counter the casting of a spell as its effect nullifies magic in an area). If Mage C names “Fireball” the spell is countered; naming any other spell (including “Counterspell”) does not interrupt Mage B’s cast.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mage D casts Counterspell to counter Mage C’s casting action. If Mage D names “Dispel Magic” the spell is countered; naming any other spell (including “Counterspell”) does not interrupt Mage C’s cast.</li> </ul>Hopefully this example makes sense. I have considered allowing casters The option to select a Feat whereby if someone attempts to counter one of their spells, they can attempt to Counter the Counter directly (one Reaction only so in the example above Mage C would be the same person as Mage A but when Mage D targeted his “Counter the Counter” he would not be able to use a third spell as a second reaction to “Counter the Counter of the Counter” - though this Feat is a thought experiment only and has not been playtested.</blockquote>

Verification