Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder overhaul suggestions, pt. 2

[Wulf Ratbane]

Easier counterspelling might be actually the best option to "nerf" spellcasters without really nerfing them.

Imagine counterspelling was always an immediate action, and Dispel Magic gave you more flexibility. (Maybe it shouldn't be just as easy as expending the slot, maybe you'd want a caster level roll.) The spellcaster has still all the firepower he used to have, but it can be countered more easily, and he will want to use it for that purpose, too...

This is what I was referring to above, re: using a Reaction to counter a spell.

I believe an appropriate counterspell would be

a) the same spell (haste vs. haste)
b) the counter spell listed in the spell description (haste vs. slow)
c) dispel magic counters anything

However, having said that, I think the possibility that a caster can lose his action AND his spell is probably too steep. Counterspelling sounds all well and good when it is the PC doing the counterspelling, but it sucks on toast when it's the bad guys doing it to you.

I'm not sold on my own idea.

 

[GlassJaw]

This is what I was referring to above, re: using a Reaction to counter a spell.

I think counterspelling is too powerful for a Reaction. It should still require a readied action.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think counterspelling is too powerful for a Reaction. It should still require a readied action.

Then I think it's not good enough...

 

[Gansk]

I am going to make it a standard action, so even if a spell has lasted a minute, you can counterspell it by simply:

1) identifying its existence with Spellcraft.
2) casting an identical spell, spell that is designed to counter (haste/slow), or Dispel Magic (caster level check still applies)

You still need to ready an action to counter instantaneous spells.

Immediate actions are too good, sorcerers would be casting Dispel Magic all the time to give them an action advantage over any other type of spellcaster.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I am going to make it a standard action, so even if a spell has lasted a minute, you can counterspell it by simply:

I prefer to maintain the distinction between counterspell (the spell is countered before it ever really exists) and dispel (the spell is removed from existence at some point after it is cast).

You still need to ready an action to counter instantaneous spells.

I'm angling to kill the Ready action entirely, but that's another discussion.

Immediate actions are too good, sorcerers would be casting Dispel Magic all the time to give them an action advantage over any other type of spellcaster.

I'm not sure it gives them an action advantage-- merely a spell slot advantage. It's still spell vs. counterspell, spell vs. counterspell, until the sorcerer takes the lead in spell slots. (Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.)

But I think it's poor design-- or at the very least, no fun at all-- to create a system that is essentially a "lockdown deck." Two wizards spending multiple rounds... denying each other the opportunity to do something fun and interesting? Do not want. That remains a hurdle I've not fully thought through.

The second point I'd like to make is that under any "immediate action" proposal (including my Reaction system) there is a trade-off of other, significantly useful things you might prefer to be doing instead (such as, in my system, actively Dodging attacks.)

 

[Gansk]

I'm not sure it gives them an action advantage-- merely a spell slot advantage. It's still spell vs. counterspell, spell vs. counterspell, until the sorcerer takes the lead in spell slots. (Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.)

But I think it's poor design-- or at the very least, no fun at all-- to create a system that is essentially a "lockdown deck." Two wizards spending multiple rounds... denying each other the opportunity to do something fun and interesting? Do not want. That remains a hurdle I've not fully thought through.

The second point I'd like to make is that under any "immediate action" proposal (including my Reaction system) there is a trade-off of other, significantly useful things you might prefer to be doing instead (such as, in my system, actively Dodging attacks.)

I think we are on the same page, but to clarify there are two general scenarios:

1) spellcaster without dispel magic vs. sorcerer with dispel magic: I call it an action advantage because typically a sorcerer cannot cast two spells a round, but counterspelling as an immediate action allows them to cast a spell, laugh at the spellcaster who did not prepare dispel magic to counter them, then counter anything the spellcaster tries in the same round. The net result after one full round is that sorcerer has cast two spells and has one in effect, and the other spellcaster has cast one spell but has nothing to show for it.

2) sorceror with dispel magic vs. sorceror with dispel magic: spell slot lockdown scenario that you describe. Spellcasters that prepare multiple dispel magics also fall into this scenario.

Of course I am describing these scenarios using an immediate action as defined in the current rules, not a variant that would make someone sacrifice more than just a swift action in the following round.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

How about allowing counterspell as an immediate action, but if successful the counterspelled wizard doesn't lose his action, but only loses the spell?

This can lead to interesting intellectual feints and counters. E.g., "If I counterspell this fireball, is he gonna whip out the haste he was saving, because he wants me to counterspell his fireball?"

Counterspelling as a reaction -- easier counterspelling in general -- should eventually lead to a wider variety in the spells chosen by spellcasters. "Sure, fireball is a good spell, but every wizard worth his salt can counterspell it. Maybe I should take something less common ... "

BTW, I don't like the idea of getting rid of the Ready action at all. It causes no problems in our games, and adds a great deal. As long as DMs are aware that you can't be Readied when you're not in combat -- and thus init order -- I'm not sure I get why you'd want to get rid of it, Wulf.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not sold on my own idea.

I know that feeling all too well.

How about allowing counterspell as an immediate action, but if successful the counterspelled wizard doesn't lose his action, but only loses the spell?

This can lead to interesting intellectual feints and counters. E.g., "If I counterspell this fireball, is he gonna whip out the haste he was saving, because he wants me to counterspell his fireball?"

Counterspelling as a reaction -- easier counterspelling in general -- should eventually lead to a wider variety in the spells chosen by spellcasters. "Sure, fireball is a good spell, but every wizard worth his salt can counterspell it. Maybe I should take something less common ... "

BTW, I don't like the idea of getting rid of the Ready action at all. It causes no problems in our games, and adds a great deal. As long as DMs are aware that you can't be Readied when you're not in combat -- and thus init order -- I'm not sure I get why you'd want to get rid of it, Wulf.

That's one possibility. But I think it might lead to a terrible long round for a spellcaster:
Wizard: "Okay, haste failed, let's try Fireball. Hmm. Evards Black Tentacle? Lightning Bolt? Cat's Grace! Magic Missile! Damn, I shoot him with my Crossbow!"
Fighter: *yawn* Are you finished?



Maybe the alternative would be that it costs your action, but it doesn't cost your spell? The question is if it should still cost the counter-speller his spell?
I think that might be fair.
- Automatic Counterspell: Same spell or spell listed as counterspell. Both sides spells are expended.
- Roll opposed Caster Level Checks, but do not expend spell if you fail to counterspell: Dispel Magic, Greater Dispelling and variants. If you succeed, the opponents spell is not wasted but your dispel is, if you fail, your opponens spell succeeds but you don't lose your spell.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

That's one possibility. But I think it might lead to a terrible long round for a spellcaster:
Wizard: "Okay, haste failed, let's try Fireball. Hmm. Evards Black Tentacle? Lightning Bolt? Cat's Grace! Magic Missile! Damn, I shoot him with my Crossbow!"
Fighter: *yawn* Are you finished?

I don't understand. Are you illustrating decision paralysis, or are you illustrating multiple countered spells?

Decision paralysis happens anyway, for unprepared players. I don't think this would make it appreciably worse.

Multiple countered spells could happen, but each one costs somebody an immediate action, so the situation is going to be pretty rare, I'd think.

I personally think actions are just too valuable in D&D/Pathfinder to allow them to be stripped away by reactive counterspelling. This is even more true of spellcasters in some situations in which, if they don't get a defensive spell up now, they might not survive to even take another action.

On the other hand, "my immediate action and spell in exchange for your spell" seems pretty fair to me ... and, as I said, seems like it would lead to some interesting intellectual feint-and-counter.

 

[Nellisir]

Maybe it's time to step back and consider what a counterspell effect should do from a story standpoint rather than a mechanical one?

In most movies & novels, the counterspelled spell isn't prevented from being cast so much as it is intercepted - thus the great/mandatory visuals of two spells colliding and the ensuing contest of wills. So, maybe counterspelling doesn't automatically negate a spell so much as it initiates some kind of opposed/dynamic check. If initial caster wins, the spell takes effect. If he loses, it's countered. For additional thrills, maybe the counterspeller can expend additional spells to attempt another counter, or to bolster the initial counter. Great potential here in the final showdown as the party's wizard desperately tries to hold off the evil lich's Spells O' Doom, the cleric confronts the undead hordes, and the fighter carves her way through the rabble to get to the lich before the wizard fails.

Maybe a counterspell can also weaken a spell, reducing the spell DC by the level of the countered spell (ie, DC drops by 3 if counterspelling with dispel magic). This would give the wizard more defensive oomph without increasing his daily resources, and would potentially reduce the number of rather boring protective/buff spells to carry around. It also lets the villain retain some spell effectiveness.

From a personal standpoint, I don't think I ever have, or ever will, bother "readying" a counterspell. It takes the control out of my hands and puts it in the DM's (since my action only takes place if an NPC performs a specific action...as determined by the DM).