Haste/Slow?

[Felonious Ntent]

I can't think of any I have come across. If I did most likley I would rule the same. Temporarily nulify effect for duration of the new spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

I can't think of any I have come across. If I did most likley I would rule the same. Temporarily nulify effect for duration of the new spell.

Which is fine, as long as you realize that this is a house rule and not what the original poster was asking about.


Under Counterspells:

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


Under Haste:

"Haste dispels and counters slow."


Under Slow:

"Slow counters and dispels haste."

 

[Jdvn1]

My initial reaction is to not like that house rule, but it actually seems to make more sense with the rule that similar effects overlap, not stack. Although a Heightened Haste would trump.

 

[RigaMortus]

I don't think spells that have oposits should cancel one and other. That is what dispel magic is for.

So if spells with opposites do not cancel each other, I suppose you play that the same spell can not cancel each other as well, right?

 

[Felonious Ntent]

Not sure I understand what you are asking.
Can one stack 2 of the same spell? No unless specficaly stated by the spell.
Would a mirror image coming in contact with another mirror image cancel each other? Hell no that makes no sense to me.

 

[Jdvn1]

I think he means as with Counterspelling.

 

[Felonious Ntent]

Which is fine, as long as you realize that this is a house rule and not what the original poster was asking about.


Under Counterspells:

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


Under Haste:

"Haste dispels and counters slow."


Under Slow:

"Slow counters and dispels haste."

My interpretation of the question was what would your ruling be. Not what is the rule for this. So wether this is a house rule is not pertinant. That is unless the original poster was indeed lookign for the official ruling. If so I would have stated this is my house rule as opposed to my opinion.

 

[Felonious Ntent]

I think he means as with Counterspelling.

If so then yes as counterspelling is its own set of rules. As long as it is specifical a counterspell action. Using the same spell as a counterspell to the original yes.

EDIT:
I have never seen someone use the same spell to counterspell so I am foggy on how this works. I have seen it doen with dispel magic by holding action.

 

[Nail]

So wether this is a house rule is not pertinant. That is unless the original poster was indeed lookign for the official ruling. If so I would have stated this is my house rule as opposed to my opinion.

Given this is the "Rules" forum, I think it's safe to assume the original poster was looking for a RAW answer.

That's "Rules As Written", BTW....not as in "a terrible deal".

BTW, I think creating a house rule that disallows Haste countering/dispelling Slow is not only completely unnecessary and needlessly confusing, but a Bad Idea(tm). YMMV.

 

[Felonious Ntent]

I never saw it as a house rule actualy even though in retrospect I see it would be concidered one. Just d20 as a system makes sense. With rules like similar effects overlaping not stacking. If some one then in the desciption of a spell breaks this rule the ease of play of d20 goes out the window. So when playing I try not to let stuff like that happen. Hence slow wont dispell haste.