There was actually one battle I ran where I had 2 mages SPECIFICALLY there to counterspell the party's clerics casting harm. Of course, since we'd used counterspell precisely zero (0) times before this, I forgot about them. And then the first cleric got a critical hit with his harm touch attack.
Counterspelling -- Does It Work?
- Thread starter The_Gneech
- Start date
ZSutherland
First Post
Delta said:
Agreed. It's simply too risky a proposition to take seriously for most PCs in most situations. I've considered several house rules to try and correct it, but I've never gotten around to actually implementing one as a test. I think the best option would be to remove the readied action requirement and allow spellcasters to counter-spell with a delayed action. I've also seriously considered removing the "same spell or counterspell" requirement and changing it to a "same spell level and type" requirement. Thus, 3rd level arcane is countered by any 3rd level arcane. I'd probably always require an opposed caster level check if I went with this house rule.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
ZSutherland said:
That's pretty much along the same lines I've contemplated.
I'd really like to see a real mage-duel once in D&D.
frankthedm
First Post
Costing your foes opportunities is the first thing NPCs should be going for. Smart foes make sure thier enemies can't do anything, whether it is positioning themselves so the only person the great sword weilder can charge are the readied longsear weilders or moving behind total cover so the caster can only hope to nail a foe with an airburst fireball.Rodrigo Istalindir said:
If PCs always have something to do against thier NPC foes, then the DM is giving away free XP. Low int non classed monsters are the only foes that leave themselves that vulnerable.
I have considererd making a feat or varient class ability that allows a caster to give up thier AoO to prepare to perfom a counterspell. But in my game it is a very obvious thing when someone has used thier AoO so it would still be risky.
Quartz
Hero
Aside from Dispel Magic the requirements for basic counterspelling are too great, and while there's a feat, Improved Counterspelling IIRC, that allows you to counterspell with a spell of the same school of the same or greater level, it's still too much, and in a standard game, feats are too precious.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
frankthedm said:
Given the options available to higher-level PCs, that's almost never going to happen. Or rather, given a list of options from best to worst, the odds of 'counterspell' being the best choice for a ready-action is pretty low, lower than I'd like.
If I can't see the enemy caster, I can't counterspell anyway. And with that action, I could cast a spell at a mook/mooks, buff, battleground control, use a wand or other magic item, etc.
Shemeska
Adventurer
I've only used it once as a DM, because typically it's just of more benefit to throw something that's damaging, or effective against more than one of the PCs.
However, that said, I've had one of two PCs that used it on rare occassion to rather decent effect. And the whole 'mexican standoff' scenario that was mentioned earlier in the thread, that was the case there as well (and when the PC in question had a Reactive Counterspell feat, it made life unhealthy for the BBEG, and at the very least it pissed her off to no end).
However, that said, I've had one of two PCs that used it on rare occassion to rather decent effect. And the whole 'mexican standoff' scenario that was mentioned earlier in the thread, that was the case there as well (and when the PC in question had a Reactive Counterspell feat, it made life unhealthy for the BBEG, and at the very least it pissed her off to no end).
As written, Counterspelling is just never used. Or close enough to never.
My house rule is 're-active counterspelling'. Basically, you sacrifice you *next* action to counterspell. If you make the spellcraft check, and have the spell (or dispel magic) to counter, you start doing so. This draws an AOO, and is a full-round action, lasting until the end of your next action. If you fail a concentrate check during that time, due to damage or anything else that causes one, the spell goes off as originally intended.
In fluff terms - the spellcaster catches the magic energy, and then spends a few seconds unraveling and savely dispersing the magic. It could be interesting, to have a fireball go off half a round after it was suppose to, simply because of a failed counterspell.
This makes counterspelling a very viable tactic. There is no risk of a lost action, no readying to counter, but the enemy casts something you either can't counter or pulls out a wand.
My house rule is 're-active counterspelling'. Basically, you sacrifice you *next* action to counterspell. If you make the spellcraft check, and have the spell (or dispel magic) to counter, you start doing so. This draws an AOO, and is a full-round action, lasting until the end of your next action. If you fail a concentrate check during that time, due to damage or anything else that causes one, the spell goes off as originally intended.
In fluff terms - the spellcaster catches the magic energy, and then spends a few seconds unraveling and savely dispersing the magic. It could be interesting, to have a fireball go off half a round after it was suppose to, simply because of a failed counterspell.
This makes counterspelling a very viable tactic. There is no risk of a lost action, no readying to counter, but the enemy casts something you either can't counter or pulls out a wand.
Counterspelling works if the wizard in question has the opposing caster spotted and has an action readied. Of course, in my games at least, PCs would rather just attack and do something rather than sit there and wait for it. I've done it as DM in the past, especially when I have multiple wizards to work with.
It's important the PC knows his/her surroundings, and he/she needs to be protected (by spells, PCs, etc). If the wizard is standing there waiting for the opposing wizard to begin casting, he's open for attacks from the shadows, etc, so it becomes a dangerous choice. However, in a situation like a mage's duel, or some other scenario where it's clearly a one-on-one battle, counterspelling excels. With certain feats, a wizard can really upset the enemy's chances using counterspelling.
In a chaotic battle involving PCs and monsters, the wizard might find him/herself outside of danger, and can freely target any spellcasters with a counterspell, which could be CLUTCH if the spell countered is something awful like horrid wilting or prismatic spray. Finish the round with a quickened lightning bolt or some other attack spell, and counterspell has done its job.
It's important the PC knows his/her surroundings, and he/she needs to be protected (by spells, PCs, etc). If the wizard is standing there waiting for the opposing wizard to begin casting, he's open for attacks from the shadows, etc, so it becomes a dangerous choice. However, in a situation like a mage's duel, or some other scenario where it's clearly a one-on-one battle, counterspelling excels. With certain feats, a wizard can really upset the enemy's chances using counterspelling.
In a chaotic battle involving PCs and monsters, the wizard might find him/herself outside of danger, and can freely target any spellcasters with a counterspell, which could be CLUTCH if the spell countered is something awful like horrid wilting or prismatic spray. Finish the round with a quickened lightning bolt or some other attack spell, and counterspell has done its job.
RangerWickett
Legend
In one campaign, counterspelling was one of the most common actions used by the spellcasters. The premise of the campaign was that the evil empire that controlled the world had a magical secret police force of orcish mages and clerics called the Inquisitors, who were all specifically trained to counterspell.
They couldn't cast high-level spells, and their save DCs were crap, but they could hit 3rd level spells for Dispel Magic, and they all had Improved Counterspell and (from Forgotten Realms) Reactive Counterspell, which lets you counterspell as an immediate action, but you give up your action in the next round. They wore bearskull masks, and were accompanied by at least four warriors at any time, and they would track down and kill any mages disloyal to the empire.
It helped that at the beginning of the game I had told the PCs that they all had to be spellcasters or have some close tie to a spellcaster. They hated the inquisitors. Their first encounter against them was in a flaming forest that the party had tried to cut through to evade their pursuit. The PCs and the orcs were all warded with resist energy, and when the orcs caught up, the inquisitor started by dispelling their fire protection. Then he just stood out in the open, with one bodyguard protecting him, and he waited to see if any mages cast spells. He countered three spells that fight, things that would have turned the tide in the PCs' favor.
What I loved, though, was that one player was especially cunning, and he actually developed a suite of tactics for defeating inquisitor tactics. He would always cast spells while behind cover if he could, to make it harder for the inquisitor to identify the spell. He wore a long coat with a fake right arm tucked into a pocket, while his actual arm was concealed under the coat, so he could hide his somatic components and feint to pretend he was casting. He developed a feat (the game started at 5th level, and he made this as soon as he reached 6th) that let him 'pump fake' a spell, wherein he'd do the first few words and gestures of a spell, pretending to cast it with a Bluff check, so if the inquisitor failed a Sense Motive check, they'd try to counterspell the fake spell. Then the PC would cast his actual spell.
The main villain of the campaign was the 20th level wizard who had started the inquisitors. She would cast quickened spells and still be able to counterspell. She could deflect the PCs' spells and take control of them. She basically made magic her b*tch.
The PCs had an interesting method for killing her.
They couldn't cast high-level spells, and their save DCs were crap, but they could hit 3rd level spells for Dispel Magic, and they all had Improved Counterspell and (from Forgotten Realms) Reactive Counterspell, which lets you counterspell as an immediate action, but you give up your action in the next round. They wore bearskull masks, and were accompanied by at least four warriors at any time, and they would track down and kill any mages disloyal to the empire.
It helped that at the beginning of the game I had told the PCs that they all had to be spellcasters or have some close tie to a spellcaster. They hated the inquisitors. Their first encounter against them was in a flaming forest that the party had tried to cut through to evade their pursuit. The PCs and the orcs were all warded with resist energy, and when the orcs caught up, the inquisitor started by dispelling their fire protection. Then he just stood out in the open, with one bodyguard protecting him, and he waited to see if any mages cast spells. He countered three spells that fight, things that would have turned the tide in the PCs' favor.
What I loved, though, was that one player was especially cunning, and he actually developed a suite of tactics for defeating inquisitor tactics. He would always cast spells while behind cover if he could, to make it harder for the inquisitor to identify the spell. He wore a long coat with a fake right arm tucked into a pocket, while his actual arm was concealed under the coat, so he could hide his somatic components and feint to pretend he was casting. He developed a feat (the game started at 5th level, and he made this as soon as he reached 6th) that let him 'pump fake' a spell, wherein he'd do the first few words and gestures of a spell, pretending to cast it with a Bluff check, so if the inquisitor failed a Sense Motive check, they'd try to counterspell the fake spell. Then the PC would cast his actual spell.
The main villain of the campaign was the 20th level wizard who had started the inquisitors. She would cast quickened spells and still be able to counterspell. She could deflect the PCs' spells and take control of them. She basically made magic her b*tch.
The PCs had an interesting method for killing her.
Similar Threads
