Counterspelling...

[Michael Morris]

Check out the counterspells of the blue mage. Those spells make counterspelling a much more viable option. It's over in the house rules thread.

 

[aliensex]

Hey, make up your own feats! Not unreasonable to have some feats available just for NPCs who have highly specialized themselves in a particular field.

 

[kreynolds]

Hey, make up your own feats!

I'm thinking about it at this point. I might just whip up a spellfire-wielding-spell-absorbing-counterspelling-fiend.

Not unreasonable to have some feats available just for NPCs who have highly specialized themselves in a particular field.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Zhure]

Spell Focus: Abjuration? Kind of lame, but something. Spellfire sounds the ticket.

Greg

 

[eviloverlord]

Thanks to Oni for your thoughtful reply.

I don't have my books with me so I'm relying on the SRD to address your points.

First, it would require a full round for a sorceror to cast a metamagicked spell. However, there is nothing in the SRD that suggests that a spell with a casting time of 1 full round cannot be used to counterspell. Maybe you're referring to the requirement of readying an action to counterspell and the fact that a full round action cannot be readied. The feat Reactive Counterspelling addresses this problem quite nicely.

Second, you mention that metamagic is not taken into account in terms of counterspelling. That is not entirely complete or accurate. The SRD states the following:

"Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered."

I believe the above statement is saying that for purposes of determining a metamagicked spell can be countered, the metamagic feats on such metamagicked spell are not taken into account (i.e., a Quickened Fireball is still a third level spell for purposes of counterspelling).

Oni, if I have somehow managed to misconstrue you thoughts, please let me know.

Hope this clarifies some things.

 

[kreynolds]

Since Reactive Counterspelling allows the use any spell of a higher level of the same school to counterspell...

That would be Improved Counterspell, not Reactive. Reactive lets you counterspell without needing to ready an action.

 

[kreynolds]

Metamagic is generally not taken into account in regards to countering.

Heighten Spell is.

 

[Samhain California]

you might want to look at archmage "mastery of counter spelling"
which allows you to redirect spells (like the ring of spell battle).

the most potent counter spellser i have figured out tho is a cleric

inquisiton domain, plus a bunch of levels and or a bead of karma usually work out well since you dont have to spend as much time picking out your spell list

im not usre how 3.5 is going to work out with haste, if it makes the counter speller more viable or less, right now im leaning to more viable, but im not quite sure
--josh

 

[Oni]

First, it would require a full round for a sorceror to cast a metamagicked spell. However, there is nothing in the SRD that suggests that a spell with a casting time of 1 full round cannot be used to counterspell. Maybe you're referring to the requirement of readying an action to counterspell and the fact that a full round action cannot be readied. The feat Reactive Counterspelling addresses this problem quite nicely.

This is really the part I feel unsure about. If say a wizard has a heightened spell prepared and we assume that that counts toward being able to counter it with the improved counter feat, that I can understand. However a sorcerer doesn't have a heightened spell on tap, he has to heighten it first and for a sorcerer this is part of the casting process not preperation. As far as I know there isn't any precedent for altering a counter on the fly to make it eligible to counter another spell using the improved counterspelling feat.

Also I'm not sure that Reactive Counterspelling does address that nicely, it allows you to take a counter action which seems analogous to a partial action but that wouldnt allow for a full round casting time.

Then of course there is the temporal headache that is created by countering a shorter action (a standard action) with longer action (a full round action).

 

[kreynolds]

Also I'm not sure that Reactive Counterspelling does address that nicely, it allows you to take a counter action which seems analogous to a partial action but that wouldnt allow for a full round casting time.

I agree. The only difference between a regular counterspell and Reactive Counterspell is that you don't have to ready the counterspell when you use the feat. It doesn't give you any more time than you would normally get.