exact casting time of wand of enlarge person

[cheshire_grin]

You need to read up on counterspelling.

Quite possible; I don't often play arcane casters, and as someone else noted, counterspelling isn't particularly effective in any case.

So per the RAW in order to coutnerspell you must first identify the spell being cast via Spellcraft check.

In order to make a spellcraft check to identy a spell being cast you must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components.

You're telling me that if someone points a wand at me and a clearly identifiable fireball comes out and hits me, and the next round the fellow points it at me again, I can't assume (for whatever purposes counterspelling requires) that it will be fireball again? Worst case, I counterspell fireball and it turns out to be something else, and my counterspell autofails.

I mean, yeah, RAW and all that, but seriously? It would take a hidebound DM to rule I had no way to figure out what spell to counterspell in that situation.

A wand has neither even though it requires uttering a single word for activation - that is not considered a somatic component (or else ASF would be kicking in).

Er, yeah, because a somatic component involves arcane gestures. The "uttering words" portion of the spell is the verbal component.

 

[Dross]

You're telling me that if someone points a wand at me and a clearly identifiable fireball comes out and hits me, and the next round the fellow points it at me again, I can't assume (for whatever purposes counterspelling requires) that it will be fireball again? Worst case, I counterspell fireball and it turns out to be something else, and my counterspell autofails.

I mean, yeah, RAW and all that, but seriously? It would take a hidebound DM to rule I had no way to figure out what spell to counterspell in that situation.

I'm wouldn't call such a DM hidebound, although I'm not against houseruling this in.

From my reading of things, the time to counterspell the wand (of fireballs) is during wand creation since that is whan V and S components occur.

Just because you know that a wand is a wand of ## does mean that counterspelling should work (IMHO). There are other things that you can do to counter the wand.

But also remember that if a caster casts fireball, then casts another fireball next round you still need a spellcraft check to ID the spell. :\

 

[irdeggman]

Quite possible; I don't often play arcane casters, and as someone else noted, counterspelling isn't particularly effective in any case.

Not quite true.

I've had (and heard of) players whose PCs are quite adept at counterspelling. So it is actually situational in how useful it is. It can be extremely useful and it can be extremely useless.

You're telling me that if someone points a wand at me and a clearly identifiable fireball comes out and hits me, and the next round the fellow points it at me again, I can't assume (for whatever purposes counterspelling requires) that it will be fireball again? Worst case, I counterspell fireball and it turns out to be something else, and my counterspell autofails.

I mean, yeah, RAW and all that, but seriously? It would take a hidebound DM to rule I had no way to figure out what spell to counterspell in that situation.

You can't counterspell a spell-like ability either even though it will generate an AoO.


From the SRD:

Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates would be subject to spell resistance.

A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A spell-like ability that can be used at will has no use limit. Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

Er, yeah, because a somatic component involves arcane gestures. The "uttering words" portion of the spell is the verbal component.

That is a pretty braod assumption since it is an "activation" word and not the verbal parts of casting a spell. For example a wand of fireballs' activation word is a single word and is not necessarily the same as the verbal part of casting the same spell. This is all part of why you don't generate an AoO when using a wand but do when casting a spell.

 

[cheshire_grin]

Not quite true.

You can't counterspell a spell-like ability either even though it will generate an AoO.

With spell-like abilities there's no verbal or somatic component to tell you what spell to counter, and unlike a wand, creatures are unlikely to repeatedly use the same SLA, so that avenue is out. Your only option would be Dispel Magic (or wild guesses). And yeah, like I said, RAW says you can't, but does it really seem logical that you can't counterspell it? Maybe it does for SLAs (since they're not spells at all, they're spell-like), but I'm not sure the same is really true of wands.

That is a pretty braod assumption since it is an "activation" word and not the verbal parts of casting a spell. For example a wand of fireballs' activation word is a single word and is not necessarily the same as the verbal part of casting the same spell.

The verbal component for feather fall is an "instant utterance"; does that sound like it's much more complicated than an "activation word"? And yet you can counterspell feather fall, right?

Counterspelling doesn't rely on the verbal component being something specific (otherwise you couldn't counterspell a Silent spell or a spell with no verbal component--but you can); the only need for a verbal or somatic component is to allow you to identify the spell so you know what to counter. A wand avoids that need once you've seen it cast once. So that objection -- yes, yes, RAW, I know, but logically -- doesn't make any sense to me.

Again, I know that by RAW you cannot counterspell a wand. I'm just saying that it's one of those cases where I think the RAW should be changed.

 

[irdeggman]

Counterspelling doesn't rely on the verbal component being something specific (otherwise you couldn't counterspell a Silent spell or a spell with no verbal component--but you can); the only need for a verbal or somatic component is to allow you to identify the spell so you know what to counter. A wand avoids that need once you've seen it cast once. So that objection -- yes, yes, RAW, I know, but logically -- doesn't make any sense to me.

But per RAW you couldn't counterspell a silent, stilled spell since you also couldn't identify the spell via spellcraft check either.

Pretty much as long as a spell has a verbal or somatic component you can make a spellcraft check to identify the spell (first step in counterspelling) - but if it doesn't then you can't.

Again, I know that by RAW you cannot counterspell a wand. I'm just saying that it's one of those cases where I think the RAW should be changed.

I'm not going to disagree with any such house-rule, only what the RAW says.

 

[cheshire_grin]

But per RAW you couldn't counterspell a silent, stilled spell since you also couldn't identify the spell via spellcraft check either.

Pretty much as long as a spell has a verbal or somatic component you can make a spellcraft check to identify the spell (first step in counterspelling) - but if it doesn't then you can't.

And that still doesn't dismiss what I'm saying: the only reason it must have a verbal or somatic component is so that you can identify the spell being cast; the actual act of counterspelling is distinct and dependent only on the knowledge thus gained. So could you in fact counterspell a stilled silent spell--with Dispel Magic?

And given some other avenue to the same information (such as a wand that repeatedly casts the same spell), one would not need verbal or somatic gestures to identify the spell (you would need only to see its effects once).

 

[UltimaGabe]

And that still doesn't dismiss what I'm saying: the only reason it must have a verbal or somatic component is so that you can identify the spell being cast; the actual act of counterspelling is distinct and dependent only on the knowledge thus gained.

This, of course, is your assumption. It may well be true as per the intent of the game's designers, but that's anybody's guess. According to the Counterspelling Rules, you cannot counterspell something unless it is identified. (The first step to counterspelling is identifying the spell.) You're assuming that you only need to identify it if you don't know the spell being cast- and yet, the rules on Counterspelling make no mention of, "If you already know what spell is being cast, you can skip step 1." By the rules, you are wrong in your assumption. As Werk said, coutnerspelling doesn't interrupt the spell, it interrupts the casting.

You really don't have any sort of a basis for your argument that "the actual act of counterspelling is distinct and dependant only on the knowledge thus gained"- unless you have a rules quote to go along with such a statement.

This may sound incredibly dumb and anal and rules lawyer-ish, and it very well may be. But the line on rules has to be drawn somewhere, and the rules only give so much of a guide. Anything beyond them is a house rule. Feel free to house rule is however you wish, but be aware that you are applying a house rule. The spirit of the rules may lead you to come to your argument, but the rules themselves don't support you at all.

 

[irdeggman]

Applicable text from the SRD (or go to PHB pg 170):

COUNTERSPELLS
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.)

If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things.

To complete the action, you must then cast the correct spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.

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

Specific Exceptions: Some spells specifically counter each other, especially when they have diametrically opposed effects.

Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, and you don’t need to identify the spell he or she is casting. However, dispel magic doesn’t always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).

 

[cheshire_grin]

Applicable text from the SRD (or go to PHB pg 170):

And here's what I see as the relevant bits:

If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things.

This supports my contention that identifying the spell and countering the spell are distinct actions. The only requirement for counterspelling is that you use the same spell to counter with. If you know what spell it is, why would you need to identify it?

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

Still Spell and Silent Spell are both metamagic feats. Which implies that you can counterspell a still, silent spell -- if you can identify it. You can't do so as it's being cast (because there are no components to ID), but if the spell is being cast repeatedly I don't see why you would need the components to identify it.

Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, and you don’t need to identify the spell he or she is casting. However, dispel magic doesn’t always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).

Again, support for the idea that you need not identify a spell to counter it. There is nothing inherent about using the Spellcraft check as a part of every counterspell--it's there only so that you can identify which spell to counter. If you know that through another source, or are using Dispel Magic, you can counter without a Spellcraft check (and thus without the need for either verbal or somatic component).

You're countering the spell itself, not the casting (i.e. the V/S components) of the spell. I think it's entirely debatable whether a wand can be countered or not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This supports my contention that identifying the spell and countering the spell are distinct actions. The only requirement for counterspelling is that you use the same spell to counter with. If you know what spell it is, why would you need to identify it?

I agree that identifying the spell and countering it are distinct... but you stopped highlighting too soon.

Make a Spellcraft check. "If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things."

If the check fails, not only can you not identify the spell; you explicitly cannot do either of the two things, identify or counter.

Unless you're using Dispel Magic.

-Hyp.