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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2207927" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification