Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UltimaGabe" data-source="post: 3766644" data-attributes="member: 16019">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, &quot;If you already know what spell is being cast, you can skip step 1.&quot; 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 &quot;the actual act of counterspelling is distinct and dependant only on the knowledge thus gained&quot;- 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UltimaGabe, post: 3766644, member: 16019"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification