Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 7647" data-attributes="member: 259">Never used it myself.  As someone else said, it's almost always better to whack the sorcerer with offensive magic than to hope you'll have an appropriate counterspell.Consider, for example, a sixth-level wizard going up against a sixth-level wizard.  Your opponent might fireball you, and you could ready an action to counterspell with your own fireball.Or, you could ready an action to fireball the wizard when she starts to cast.  This approach has several advantages:1) Whatever the wizard casts, you've got a witty reply to it.  With counterspell, if the wizard casts Simba's Original Freaking Dweomer, you're left slackjawed and useless.2) Your witty reply might kill the wizard instead of just negating her action.  With counterspell, your best result is a negation of her action.3) Even if your witty reply doesn't kill the wizard, you give her a nasty concentration check to make.I could imagine a few circumstances under which it'd be a great option.  Can you counterspell spell-like effects?  If so, when you're going to fight a  beholder, it might be wise to have the spells disintegrate, charm monster, and stone to flesh prepared.  Hmm -- although when you think about it, instead of preparing disintegrate, you could prepare antimagic field, and have a much easier time of beholderkilling.I'm having real trouble thinking of occasions where counterspelling is wise.Daniel</blockquote>

Verification