Counterspelling?

[Ao the Overkitty]

I've only seen it once, and only cause I convinced our group that it was the most effective use of the spellcaster for that battle.

We were going up against a clutch of 4 Adult (or Mature Adult) Half-Fiend White Dragons (group was around 10th or 11th level). We knew they liked to soften up their opponents from afar with spells and had really good SR, so our sorcerer was unlikely to get spells through. We're very lucky she readied to counterspell with dispel magic. They tried to drop two maximized unholy blights on us for 80 damage each. That would have taken everyone out. The counterspell managed to knock out one of those blights.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I made a counterspeller. Improved init, improved counterspell and reactive counterspell.

Using the base rules in the original game, counterspelling is so totally worthless it's a joke.

First - You're using your action to MAYBE be able to fling a spell at someone that will MAYBE stop their spell. Since it's made clear in the DMG that readying actions is fairly obvious, it makes it a simple tactic for any opposing mage to simply not cast spells, and instead save his blastyness for later.

Second - counterspelling only works against foes that ACTUALLY CAST SPELLS. Given the normal distribution of foes, that means that very few of your foes will be susceptible to counterspelling. Most will throw SLA's or SU abilities at you, duplicating the effect of being a spellcaster without ever opening themselves up to counterspells.

Third - even with improved counterspell, you need to design your daily spell loadout around counterspelling. You have to have high level spells of the appropriate schools memorised or on your spell list. This isn't always feasable, and it is always a drain on resources - you've put down spells that you don't intend to actually use, merely hold for counterspells.

Fourth - Your foe will have more resources than you. You will typically be facing a foe with a higher caster level. That means he has access to more powerful spells than you can counterspell, and dispel magic is less than a 50/50 shot. Additionally, given the standard model for D&D encounters/day and the general layout of the average D&D plot (ie - the BBEG does nothing but wait for the PC's to show up to kill him) you will typically face a mage when he is fresh and you are depleted. So you're going into a fight where the rules are that you have to match what he throws at you 1 for 1 or WORSE (if you use improved counterspell), and you have less resources to start out with. You are going to lose.

Fifth - just hitting the guy does a much better job. If, instead of readying a counterspell you cast magic missile, not only do you disrupt his spell, but you also help kill him.

Sixth - silent, still spells get through automatically and there's nothing you can do about it.

WITH reactive counterspell, you're still probably in the same boat - you are still trying to match a foe 1 for 1 when he has superior resources. You still need to design your daily spell loadout to cope. You will still find out that most of your foes do not allow use of your feat. You would still be better off just hitting him when casts. He still slips silent and still spells past your radar. The only actual saving you've made is that you're no longer wasting actions if he doesn't cast, or casts something you cannot counter.

To make counterspelling a viable tactic, one or more of the following need to be considered
1. A feat to allow countering of an SLA. (Su) are sufficiently different and uncommon that I think we can leave those.
2. A feat to allow spellcraft checks to identify silent, still spells in time for countering - require the use of detect magic or arcane sight to do it, but still.
3. Improve the counterspelling aspect of dispel magic.
4. A way to allow a countering spell to still have some of it's original effect (greatly diminished, but still not "the mages concentrate and, spectacularly, nothing happens")
5. A way to allow a countered spell to still have some of it's original effect (greatly diminished, but still not "the mages concentrate and, spectacularly, nothing happens")

I think that covers it.

Oh, and shadowrun counterspelling is always present in battles between mages. It always makes a difference. It's always a tactical play. How? It's a free action to do, it requires no special knowledge of your foe or the spell he is casting, it's not always 100% effective, but usually makes a difference, and it costs almost no resources. In short, it's almost everything that D&D counterspelling isn't.

 

[SamhainIA]

I think counterspelling is the BEST thing since sliced bread (Really folks!). With a really big caveat, you have to be playing forgotten realms (or allowing the use of the feats/spells from that campaign setting). Please forgive the seemingly disjointed ness of this post, i just want to say so much and am having trouble distilling my thoughts.

I played a Priestly counterspeller in 3.0 with the old haste, and it was ok ish, cast one, ready to counter and reactive counter and you can shut one guy down fully, its all about damage mitigation, and being really uber in your build. I am not sure how the build is at lower levels cause it depends on being able to metamagic quicken

in 3.5 i have played a bit with my 3.0 character (was from living city) and im re-working him to try and take advantage of archmage "mastery of counterspelling" but basically, pick up the "inquistion" domain (+4 to dispell checks) and a bead of Karma and dispells might start to work to your advantage.

The Counterspeller works best, if its his only role, its very hard to play a Counterspeller(CSer from here out), while healing the party or nuking or ETC, all of those other things take up important spell slots, that can be used for countering spells. the CS needs to define what types of spells they want to be able to counter and mem spells with the specific purpose to drop just to counter those spells, certain spells that you might want to counter , include Teleport, Plane shift, insta-kill spells like finger of death, time stop, Maze etc.

Here is my secret, you dont have to "counterspell" everything you can just as equally nullify many of the above named spells with a few important precast spells (some are just common sense) death warding people with low fort saves makes many insta kill spells useless vs the people most at risk, having an active Dimension lock will hamper teleport and maze ( Dim Anchor on one's self is the best way i know of to prevent getting mazed)
But there are AMAZINGLY useful things left to counter Haste (or them slowing to remove your haste), evards black tentacles, wall spells, spells that controll the terrain to the enemy's favor.

The point of a CSer is to not be powerful, to not do damage. but to put the balance of power on the side of the PC's. a competent CSer can effectivly controll a battle's outcome by deciding what spells to "allow" and minimize the damage inflicted on PCs.

--skip the c2cp worth here, i feel that im weing in for a whole platnium maybe a few
--Samhain

 

[SamhainIA]

Sixth - silent, still spells get through automatically and there's nothing you can do about it.

i belive that this is untrue, but would incur a -5 penalty for no somatic and -5 for no verbal according to the 3.5 rule set (and not common sense rules, and there I agree you are probably right)

as a DM i would answer well its magic maybe he just "knows" you casting and with his godly spellcraft roll he can tell what it is by the way your looking, or the visible effects of the spell casting, or the material focus.

--Samhain

 

[Saeviomagy]

The point of a CSer is to not be powerful, to not do damage. but to put the balance of power on the side of the PC's. a competent CSer can effectivly controll a battle's outcome by deciding what spells to "allow" and minimize the damage inflicted on PCs.

At a guess, your campaign
1) Focussed on facing human opponents, with a liberal sprinkling of casters
2) Took part in a semi-social environment, where you're likely to have up-front knowledge of your opponents and their tactics

Without these two points, a counterspeller must ALSO have the ability to contribute in battles where his counterspelling will be useless.

It's also exceptionally pertinent to note that nowadays reactive counterspelling uses up not just the action required to counterspell - it uses up your WHOLE NEXT GO, and that old-style haste does indeed allow for a powerful counterspeller. Quickened spells, however, cannot be combined with the use of reactive counterspell (no go means no free actions either...). However a foe using quickened spells vs a counterspeller will quickly defeat him - the counterspeller can still only counter once per round as he can only ready a single action per round.

i belive that this is untrue, but would incur a -5 penalty for no somatic and -5 for no verbal according to the 3.5 rule set (and not common sense rules, and there I agree you are probably right)

as a DM i would answer well its magic maybe he just "knows" you casting and with his godly spellcraft roll he can tell what it is by the way your looking, or the visible effects of the spell casting, or the material focus.

From the SRD, spellcraft:
"15 + spell level: Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry."

The reference on counterspelling makes no note of this, but I think that many DMs would probably take the spellcraft skill reference over the sketchy counterspell reference. There are no references whatsoever to increasing the DC, or decreasing the check when you are missing part of the puzzle.

Personally I would rule that as soon as your opponent requires any sort of component that would be perceivable, and you know what that component is, you can ID the spell and counterspell. Additionally I'd say that having detect magic or arcane sight up while a spell is being cast would allow a normal ID check regardless of the components of the spell present. The rules do not support this however.

 

[KB9JMQ]

I have never even looked up the rules for it since no has even wanted to try it.
I might throw one at my party someday as a surprise though.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

I've seen it used in a game in exactly one session. The party wizard, knowing the party was going up against an ogre mage (D'Gran in the Crater Ridge Mines), set aside his usual array of fireballs (he was an elemental savant who had a serious fireball fetish, casting it even when it got him in trouble) for a bunch of dispel magics. Worked like a charm.

 

[Wombat]

Maybe seen it used once...

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

What do mean you don't counterspell?

This blows me away . . . more than 7 of 10 have NEVER seen it used?

Let me lay it out for you . . .

My primary PC is a dwarven fighter/mage. 10th level character, 9th level caster. I haven't even specialized in counterspelling. In fact, I've taken no feats related to counterspelling. My character acts as a primary front-line fighter . . . draconic polymorph + haste + blur equals awesome front-liner.

Anyway, I have used dispel magic as a counterspell (failed some, succeeded more often than not) on several occassions, and I've used fireball, haste, and dispel magic to counter those specific spells.

How can you not like this? Group of four PCs faces off against an appropriate level challenge . . . that's either a single critter of the same or slightly higher level or several critters of lower level. If the opponent is a single spell caster (even if it's higher level) then that caster is FINISHED. One or two of the PCs ready counterspell actions while the others pound the crap out of him. That single caster can't get a spell off because one of the freaking PCs counterspells him. Maybe it's not successful everytime, but even if it's half the time it's probably worth it. If you're fighting a large group of opponents then it's even MORE likely that at least one of them is a caster AND s/he's probably lower level than your PC. Now when you counterspell with dispel magic you have more than 50% chance of success. Granted, you're not killing anything with your counterspell action, and you're not in the glamorous role of field cannon, but saving the party from a 8d6 fireball to EACH PC is probably worth a hell of lot more than doing the same damage to an opponent (or group of opponents). How about stopping the 8th level wizard from casting HASTE on EIGHT of his 5th level fighter friends? That's pretty damn useful. Is that a vampire wizard about to cast baleful polymorph on the rogue? Good thing the druid readied an action to counterspell . . . that lone vampire wasted his action this turn because the druid has baleful polymorph memorized.

OK, so it's very situational. I would not recommend making a character based on counterspelling, but to say you've NEVER seen it used? That's amazing! Preventing the BBEG from casting a SINGLE devasting spell is so worth it. I would "waste" EVERY round of combat readying a counterspell if I thought that the BBEG caster would choose not to cast because he saw me ready the counterspell action.

Try it sometime.

Let me offer some more examples:
1) Is it better to haste your own party of four or five PCs OR counter the BBEG's haste on 8 or 10 or 12 (whatever his caster-level or number of buddies is) bad guys? I would suggest that using haste to counter the BBEG's haste is more valuable than casting it on your own group if the BBEG has at least two more people to apply it to than you do.

2) Is it better to hit the lone BBEG caster with fireball for 9d6 hp of damage or use your own fireball to counter his 10d6 fireball that was going to hit two or three of the PCs? I think this one's a no-brainer.

3) Would you rather use disintegrate to MAYBE kill the BBEG or use it to counter his own use of disintegrate and GUARANTEE that the rogue, or the cleric or whoever (maybe yourself) did not die from it? Again, no-brainer, in my opinion.

Counterspelling is very situational. It doesn't always succeed.

Spell casting is ALSO very situational, and if your spell allows a saving throw or spell resistance, it doesn't always succeed either.

 

[Celebrim]

To make counterspelling a viable tactic, one or more of the following need to be considered
1. A feat to allow countering of an SLA. (Su) are sufficiently different and uncommon that I think we can leave those.
2. A feat to allow spellcraft checks to identify silent, still spells in time for countering - require the use of detect magic or arcane sight to do it, but still.
3. Improve the counterspelling aspect of dispel magic.
4. A way to allow a countering spell to still have some of it's original effect (greatly diminished, but still not "the mages concentrate and, spectacularly, nothing happens")
5. A way to allow a countered spell to still have some of it's original effect (greatly diminished, but still not "the mages concentrate and, spectacularly, nothing happens")

Saeviomagy: I appreciate your comments on the existing system. Although I'd never tried to run a counterspeller, I'd come to much the same conclusions (which is probably why I'd never tried to run a counterspeller). I'm trying to solve the problem with some new feats and spells (many of which are actually somewhat inspired by MtG).

I've got two major concerns, which are quite simply and obviously:

First, the path to becoming a powerful Abjuration mage will require so many feats that it will still be rather unattractive, or even require more feats than a Wizard is going to have access to (for non-humans, just 11).

On the other hand, I want to be careful about unleashing something into the campaign that nullifies spellcasters to the same or greater degree that a min/maxed cleric can be designed to nullify undead. I've built clerics in the past specifically with the idea in mind that I could sacrifice being generally a useful combatant in exchange for whenever the party ran into undead I could make up for it by pretty much single handedly able to take care of the situation. What do you think about the idea of a spellcaster built with a similar intent toward other spellcasters and magical effects? Would it be worthwhile to play a character whose sole or primary purpose in the party was to be defensive and dominate other arcane spell casters?

I personally just don't have any real playtesting to go on. So, about your list:

#1) I'd consider make this available without a feat. A spell effect is a spell effect is a spell effect AFAIC.
#2) Still and silent spells carry thier own burdens, and I'd generally speaking only allow epic level spellcraft checks to indentify when one is being cast, BUT, that said there is a powerful feat in my campaign (powerful enough that its intended that pretty much all spell casters are intended to pick it up sooner or later) that would take care of that problem, because I also agree that someone using detect magic ought to be able to detect a spell as it were being built (as it were). As a side note, it almost sounds to me like you ran a counterspelling character and your DM deliberately metagamed against you. I can't think of the time when I've as a DM built an NPC spellcaster with alot of prepared silent still spells, other than maybe a dispel magic to get himself out of jams.
#3) What do you mean by this? What specific recommendations would you make for improving this aspect of dispel magic?
#4) Your suggestion immediately made me think of a new idea for a feat, but I've already designed some new reactive/proactive abjuration spells that pretty much do exactly that. Any explanation of what precisely you had in mind could help trigger my imagination.
#5) This I'm less certain about, because its actually a way to make counterspelling less powerful. I can imagine something like the inverse of the above feat, but then a counterspeller with feat #4 and a spell caster with feat #5 would exactly counteract each other. Why did you specifically think this was important?

Anything at all you can tell me about your experiences would be helpful.