Counter spell

[GlassJaw]

I personally don't see a big problem with a spellcaster using a reaction to counterspell, but if that is an issue, how about making it a reaction plus an action point?

If I was playing a caster and we were fighting an enemy caster, you can be damn sure that every one of my reactions would be used to counter that caster's spells.

Conversely, if I was DM'ing, I would also be using every once of my caster's reactions to counter the PC caster's spells.

So every round would turn into cast, counter, caster, counter.

That's not fun for anyone.

Requiring an AP might work but my gut feeling is that would make counterspelling used even less frequently than it is now.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Well, my idea would be that a wizard could only counter spells directly targeted at him. So if the enemy wizards cast spells at the fighter, you couldn't do anything about that; likewise if he cast a fireball, you couldn't do anything about that either. So it would be more limited than the standard 3E counterspell mechanic. The idea would be that wizards are particularly good at countering wizards; I don't see how that would be that much different than a fighter parrying his opponents attack.

Also, I could see ways to make your spell harder to counter; cast it silently or while invisible, quicken it or use still spell. Use multiple feats in conjunction, perhaps.

Then again, I lean more towards a radical reinterpretation of D&D magic than is probably within the Trailblazer purview.

 

[GlassJaw]

Well, my idea would be that a wizard could only counter spells directly targeted at him. So if the enemy wizards cast spells at the fighter, you couldn't do anything about that; likewise if he cast a fireball, you couldn't do anything about that either. So it would be more limited than the standard 3E counterspell mechanic. The idea would be that wizards are particularly good at countering wizards; I don't see how that would be that much different than a fighter parrying his opponents attack.

This I do like.