Questions about Counterspelling

[reichtfeld]

I've recently grown interested in the topic of counterspelling and dispelling magic when thinking about the progression I have planned for a current character or for future character concepts. The reading that I've done has raised a few questions.

1) Can greater dispelling be used to counterspell in the same way as dispel magic? I would think so, since it is a graduated version of the spell, but I read a feat in MGP's The Quintessential Wizard that had the bonus affect of allowing the recipient to use greater dispelling in that capacity. I would like to think that benefit from the feat is moot.

2) Are there published feats that add a bonus to caster level checks for dispelling magic in the same sense that Spell Penetration adds a bonus to overcome SR. Spell Girding (from Magic of Faerun) adds a penalty to enemies' dispel attempts, so I'm wondering if there's an opposite sort of feat. If there aren't published feats, could I get feedback on these two that I homebrewed?

Spell Sundering [General]
Your ability to dispel magic is especially potent, overcoming spell strength more readily than normal.
Benefit: You gain a +2 competence bonus to Spellcraft checks made to identify a spell that you wish to counter. If after successfully identifying a spell you elect to counter it with dispel magic, you gain a +2 competence bonus to your caster level check to defeat the spell.

Improved Spell Sundering [General]
Your benefit to dispel magic is especially potent, overcoming spell strength more readily than normal.
Prerequisites: Spell Sundering
Benefit: You gain a +4 competence bonus to Spellcraft checks made to identify a spell that you wish to counter. If after successfully identifying a spell you elect to counter it with dispel magic, you gain a +4 competence bonus to your caster level check to defeat the spell. Both of these bonuses supercede (are not cumulative with) the bonuses from Spell Sundering.

The idea for the Spellcraft bonus came from the aforementioned MGP feat, Spell Hawk. Because a bonus to caster level checks for use of dispel magic or greater dispelling caps out at +10 and +20 for each of the spells respectively, then at higher levels the benefit is negated. ie a 16th level wizard with Improved Spell Sundering rolls his caster level check at 1d20+20 with greater dispelling, that bonus is capped at 1d20+20 when the same wizard is level 17 or higher. Rather than bend the rules for either dispel and have the bonus ignore the +10 or +20 caps, I figured a Spellcraft bonus would help offset the feats' eventual loss of utility. Or would they be better off simply ignoring the caps?

3) Could anyone familiar/experienced with the feat Counterspell Riposte from FFG's Path of Magic book tell me whether they consider or have found the feat to be balanced or imbalanced in their experience? The whole OGL thing confuses me and I don't know if I'm allowed to reprint the text of the feat here, but it is essentially a metamagic feat that adds a +2 adjustment to a prepared spell and allows it to be used as an AoO/free action after a successful counterspell. I think the premise is real neat and on initial appearance it seems to be balanced. Since Quicken Spell is a +4 modifier to cast as a free action, I think a +2 adjustment for Counterspell Riposte seems fair due to its utility restrictions. After all, a quickened spell can be used at the caster's discretion, but a caster has to prepare herself to counterspell and the +2 adjustment is essentially wasted if the spell never gets the chance to be used after a successful counterspell. Has this proven to be any sort of problem in playtesting?

4) Are there any published feats that allow a wizard to effectively hijack an enemy's spell and redirect it at the caster or perhaps other targets? I think everyone has to agree that this would represent the ultimate in counterspelling mastery, when a mage could reweave the magic of an opponent's spell to use it as their own instead of simply negating it. If no such feat or feats currently exist, would anyone have recommendations on the prerequisites and specific rules for such a feat?

I don't really think such a feat would be out of line with consideration to the PHB's 7th level abjuration Spell Turning, granted it had the right rules specifications and prerequisites. Spell Turning reflects the first 7 to 10 levels of spells or spell-like effects targeted at the recipient back upon the caster. Is there any errata or FAQ that stipulates whether this includes harmless/beneficial spells as well or if the caster can opt not to reflect a spell, or is this left to the realm of house rules? Luckily, touch spells are unaffected and won't keep a cleric's well-timed cure spell from bouncing back, but otherwise any buffs will have to be done before casting Spell Turning. While the spell certainly has its limitations and restrictions, it effectively uses a 7th level spell to negate and reflect an equivalent spell or combination of spells.

Counterspelling requires the use of either the same spell (equal trade), a higher level spell of the same school (in the case of Improved Counterspell, a penalty), or a dispel magic (which, with an advance in caster level check vs. the enemy can be a huge benefit when counterspelling much higher-level spells). I think that the use of a feat, feat progression, and/or requirements helps to balance out the utility of being able to reflect spells with a successful counterspell. Perhaps one feat simply turns the spell upon its caster, while an improved feat allows the counterspeller to fully hijack the spell and select an area or target of their choice?

5) Are there any prestige classes that are dedicated to counterspelling or have a predisposition toward performing as excellent specialized counterspellers? I'm thinking that if there aren't any, perhaps a reflective/vindictive counterspelling ability, as mentioned above, might be balanced in the context of a PrC benefit if it is too strong as a feat.


I would greatly appreciate feedback on any or all of these issues. Perhaps in the soon or distant future I can enjoy playing a master counterspeller to strike fear into the hearts of enemy casters.

 

[Simulacrum]

Yes greater dispelling can be used like the normal dispel.

Both feats posted by you are too strong. +2 +2 is too much
It hijacks the ability of skillfocus and adds another +2 bonus on top.
I'd say +2 to caster level checks is enough. This feature is already available under the name of "Focused Dispel" for the PrC Guild Wizard of Waterdeep.
-Please be careful and do not introduce too many defensive abilities to your campaign, that cant be a good thing.
Defensive casting is very powerful already if you think that dispeling and counterspelling renders many aggressive feats and features like spellfocus useless as they are impotent against defensive casters.
The Archmage PrC gets mastery of counterspelling as a feature that is the best defensive casting ability, and it is very well balanced, because you need offensive abilities to get it :

If I were you I'd be very careful to introduce 3rd party feats. Some seem ok at first but start to stink in high levels.

Also I think too strong counterspelling abilities would harm the balance of the game, I mean honestly who would like to be an offensive wizard if it was twice as fun and more save to be a defensive wizard? And to be honest it is already.
If you then take away the little risk that you have as a defensive mage then it is clearly unbalanced if not broken.

Just go with the feats Improved Counterspell and Reactive counterspell, those two are pretty balanced and hella good.
Still require tactics and some risks on your side though.

 

[gfunk]

The Chruch Inquisitor PrC from Defenders of the Faith has access to the Inquisition domain, which has the granted power of +4 on your dispel checks.

 

[Samhain California]

Re: Counterspelling Questions

1) Can greater dispelling be used to counterspell in the same way as dispel magic? I would think so, since it is a graduated version of the spell, but I read a feat in MGP's The Quintessential Wizard that had the bonus affect of allowing the recipient to use greater dispelling in that capacity. I would like to think that benefit from the feat is moot.

Yes, in its text it says like the spell dispell magic but up to a +20 to the level check, so yea it can be used that way

4) Are there any published feats that allow a wizard to effectively hijack an enemy's spell and redirect it at the caster or perhaps other targets? I think everyone has to agree that this would represent the ultimate in counterspelling mastery, when a mage could reweave the magic of an opponent's spell to use it as their own instead of simply negating it. If no such feat or feats currently exist, would anyone have recommendations on the prerequisites and specific rules for such a feat?

no, but archmage from FRCS gives "mastery of counterspelling" wich is exactly what you are looking for

5) Are there any prestige classes that are dedicated to counterspelling or have a predisposition toward performing as excellent specialized counterspellers? I'm thinking that if there aren't any, perhaps a reflective/vindictive counterspelling ability, as mentioned above, might be balanced in the context of a PrC benefit if it is too strong as a feat.

from what i know no there arent, but getting a few domains may help you:

spell from FRCS (+2 to spellcraft and concentration) acess to AM field at 6th level

Magic: acess to limited wish, arcane spells

other things that are good for a counterspeller:
Reactive counterspell (MOF)
Quicken spell (cast a quickened spell and then redy to counter spell, levels of incantrix works relly well with this)

Spell turning, spell immunity, deathward , shield are all spells that "counter" other spells beforehand

 

[Sarellion]

Also I think too strong counterspelling abilities would harm the balance of the game, I mean honestly who would like to be an offensive wizard if it was twice as fun and more save to be a defensive wizard? And to be honest it is already.
If you then take away the little risk that you have as a defensive mage then it is clearly unbalanced if not broken.

Just go with the feats Improved Counterspell and Reactive counterspell, those two are pretty balanced and hella good.
Still require tactics and some risks on your side though.

I thought that the consensus was that D&D magic is strong on the offensive ( 3 offensive to 1 defensive spells) and high level combat is very aggressive.

Or is counterspelling just underused so ppl don't realize its power?

 

[reichtfeld]

I'm very glad and appreciative that this thread got any attention at all and would like to thank those that have taken the time to offer their feedback. If I disagree or play devil's advocate against any quoted statement, I want to assure that it is because I only hope that all participants might come away the better for an open exchange of dialogue.

It hijacks the ability of skillfocus and adds another +2 bonus on top.

On that same vein, though, Alertness really sucks the wind out of Skill Focus (listen)'s sails. I do know what you mean and have to agree that the Spellcraft bonus was only a poor compromise when faced with the mentioned debacle: a competence bonus to dispel checks grows obsolete with levels, because dispel magic's caster level bonus caps at +10 and greater dispelling caps at +20. So after caster level 8, a +2 bonus from a feat or class ability gives no benefit in the case of dispel magic, which is capped at the +10. The bonus still benefits a character casting greater dispelling, but only up until caster level 18. For levels 19 and beyond, the spell is already capped at a 1d20+20 caster level check. See below, though, discussing Focused Dispel...

I'd say +2 to caster level checks is enough. This feature is already available under the name of "Focused Dispel" for the PrC Guild Wizard of Waterdeep.

The language of focused dispel states that +2 is added to any caster level checks to dispel magic. Is this bonus limited to the +10 and +20 caps on dispel magic and greater dispelling, respectively? Or is this bonus added on top of the total and not subject to the caps? The Guild Wizard of Waterdeep gets focused dispel at 7th level of the PrC, so it seems pretty cheesy for the class to gain this ability at a late level if it is subject to the +10 or +20 dispel cap and grows obsolete so soon. I'm not quite prepared to accept that focused dispel is considered so powerful that growing obsolete is planned as an element of game balance.

With consideration to the guidelines put forth in Dragon Magazine's "How To Design a Feat" article, would it be infringing upon the Guild Wizard of Waterdeep PrC to make this [seemingly] class-exclusive ability a feat? Would Focused Dispel translate well as a feat or is it considered balanced within the context of the Guild Wizard PrC and its requirements?

Defensive casting is very powerful already if you think that dispeling and counterspelling renders many aggressive feats and features like spellfocus useless as they are impotent against defensive casters.

That is actually a very good point that has to be taken into consideration. A lot of the offensive magic and metamagic feats that turn a sor/wiz into a Beast™ are negated/ignored in the counterspelling process. A quadruple empowered fireball can be utterly layed to waste, 100% sure, by the sacrifice of a humble 4th level evocation used as a counterspell with the existing Improved Counterspell feat; there isn't even the need to have the same exact spell prepared, which is surely a huge balancing factor when trying to outstrategize your enemy and prepare a counterspelling repertoire to face them with.

Depending on the flavor of a campaign, a DM's style, and the preferences/strategy of the players, I really don't think that Improved Counterspell changes the ultimate dynamic of magic vs. magic combat. It all really boils down to planning, resources, and luck. With or without counterspelling, a sor/wiz that has not planned and researched for an encounter, that does not have the necessary resources, and does not have the requisite luck will not be victorious and possibly not survive. The poor, dumb bastard that pops off that quadruple empowered fireball on an opponent with fire immunity or, worse yet, spell turning, is just as out of luck (or in the latter case, moreso) than if the opponent had counterspelled the attack. It is all about understanding an opponent's abilities (spells, items, spell-like abilities, feats, class abilities, etc.) and developing a plan of attack that neutralizes or bypasses those abilities. Offensive mage? Defensive mage? It's only the smart mage that stands a chance in my estimation.

The Archmage PrC gets mastery of counterspelling as a feature that is the best defensive casting ability, and it is very well balanced, because you need offensive abilities to get it

From all the threads discussing the Archmage PrC I understand this is a very hot topic, so I'm going to do my best to try and tapdance around inviting a debate on the class that could derail the issue of counterspelling. I've read that a lot of people's issues with the class revolve around mastery of shaping (which negates a huge need for group tactics involving mobility to compensate for area spells) and spell powers +1, +2, +3 which make what some consider to be disproportionately unbalanced DCs. What I'm curious to know is whether other people consider mastery of counterspelling itself to be balanced as an ability with its essential requirements? Do DMs and players find this ability to be broken from their own course of play? Or do educated readers think it is an exploit?

If mastery of counterspelling is generally regarded as being balanced for the benefit it offers in light of its prerequisites and limitations, this raises the next question: does an equivalent feat infringe upon the Archmage PrC? While I'm inclined to answer no in the case of Focused Dispel, I am definitely stuck on the fence in the case of the Archmage and mastery of counterspelling, and a lot of this is rooted in the controversy surrounding the PrC itself.

I think that the Archmage PrC's requirements and the cost of mastery of counterspelling itself could be adequately reflected in prerequisites for an equivalent feat. A caster level requirement seems like the obvious starting point. At bare minimum, a 13th level wizard is able to multiclass as an Archmage at level 14 unless I somehow fudged that up. Requiring knowledge of so many spells from so many schools seems to break the precedent for feat prerequisites. Since, to my knowledge, specifying arcane caster levels breaks precedent for a prereq, perhaps a high Int prereq. would help reflect that this specialty is almost exclusively pursued by arcane casters, multi-classed, or the exceptional divine caster. Since 7th level spells are a requirement for Archmage, an Int prereq. of 17 seems a natural choice for the feat. Balancing the feat in light of the spell slot sacrifice as an Archmage ability would seem the most difficult issue. My only suggestion would be requiring a feat chain, following the premise of trading one potential ability (spell slot, group of feats) for another (mastery of counterspelling, group of feats). In light of Tome and Blood's feat to gain an extra spell slot that could hypothetically replace the slot used to buy mastery of counterspelling as an archmage, a two feat chain seems like a fair prereq. for the non-PrC mastery of counterspelling feat.

Reflective Counterspell [General]
You turn counterspelled spells back upon their original caster.
Prerequisites: Spellcaster level 14th+, Int 17+, Focused Dispel, Greater Focused Dispel
Benefit: When the caster counterspells a spell, it is turned back upon the caster as if it were fully affected by a spell turning spell. If the spell cannot be affected by spell turning (for example, if it is an area or effect spell), then it is merely counterspelled.

Feedback? I'm sure there are probably a lot of very good opinions on tweaks, or perhaps just valid flames for even conceiving such a thing.

If you then take away the little risk that you have as a defensive mage then it is clearly unbalanced if not broken.

How is a defensive mage at less risk than an offensive? Best case scenario, two mages have an equal number of spell slots and a "defensive" mage prepares the exact same repertoire as the "offensive" mage to successfully counterspell each attack. In that case it's a matter of who's done the better job stacking the chips for them by having the most numerous and/or powerful allies, the better complement of magic items, the best terrain, and all the other sort of advantages a character can have in any combat. I think a key to consider in any question of balance is to remember that no character and no character class exists in a vacuum. High level spells and their casters provide for exponentially greater possibilities of feats and tactics for battle, whether alone or in a group. It all comes down to who's done the best research to prepare, has the resources to exploit that knowledge, and has enough luck to carry them through for when it comes down to saving throws, caster level checks, and the like.

Yes, in its text it says like the spell dispell magic but up to a +20 to the level check, so yea it can be used that way

I thought that had to be the case. Some poor editor at MGP was dozing off when looking over the description for Quintessential Wizard's Spell Hawk feat.

I thought that the consensus was that D&D magic is strong on the offensive ( 3 offensive to 1 defensive spells) and high level combat is very aggressive.

Getting technical, I'd have to repeat the above-mentioned opinions and state that D&D magic is ultimately whatever a DM and the players make it to be. But, making a blanket statement, I'm inclined to agree that a majority of people playing arcane spellcasters prefer rolling obscene mounds of d6s to telling their party members they all just got mass fly. The benefits of fireballs, fingers of death, and the like can often seem a lot more tangible to both the caster and her companions than instead using their magic to try and dispel enemy spells and/or items to make for an easier, albeit less flashier fight. DMs and players with a lot of high level experience can weigh in on this with their own experience on the balance and use of various spells/tactics in different kinds of encounters. It all just boils down to playtesting to make something accessible to the greatest number of people without betraying any core vision.

I'll risk jumping back to the subject of the Archmage to mention that I'm sure there's a large population of DMs and players that can include that PrC without risking any ill effects on the game. It all has to do with that specific game and how its played. Same goes for a variety of classes, feats, skills, and spells. Just take a close look at the text for Leadership to get the idea.


LASTLY, I had wanted to include this in the original post but forgot, since I'm a goober. Are there any feats or special abilities currently published that allow for any sort of counterspelling ability against spell-like abilities? Before anyone starts typing a flame, I have not given the issue any sort of consideration for balance and only ask out of an idle curiousity while on the subject of counterspelling. I know a lot of high CR creatures have a vast array of spell-like abilities, some that can be used at will. Perhaps, even more than mastery of counterspelling, the ultimate demonstration of knowledge and power might be counterspelling some poor, dumb bastard's spell-like ability to teleport as it finds itself on the losing end of a battle.

 

[AuraSeer]

By the title, I somehow thought this thread was going to be about actually counterspelling a question.

Like, I'd sit here and wait for somebody to start a thread called "Is Harm broken?" Then I'd take my readied action, post another thread with the same title, and the first thread would fizzle without effect.

No more caffeine for me tonight, I think.

 

[Bauglir]

To be honest, I've never seen the point to counterspelling (as covered in the core rules).

If I want to stop an enemy caster from casting then I can just ready an action to sling a high damage spell at him when he tries to cast. (This has the added bonus of doing a big load of damage to the enemy, as well as giving them a nigh impossible concentration check)

About the only time I'd even consider trying to counterspell would be vs a caster with a lot of defences up, (minor globe, spell turning, etc.) and even then I'd probably consider my Dispel Magics better used at getting RID of those defences (What happens when all the dispel magics are used up counterspelling, and the enemy mage still has all those defences, and a few more offensive spells left over to boot?)

Or have I just interpreted this wrongly?

 

[reichtfeld]

I changed the thread name for AuraSeer in case he wanted to start a seperate discussion on how to counterpost stupid forum threads. No need for any confusion.

To be honest, I've never seen the point to counterspelling (as covered in the core rules).

With core rules (and only PHB feats) I absolutely agree. While counterspelling does enjoy the benefit of a 100% chance to work, you have to have the same exact spell memorized. Odds are you're better off using a damage spell to try and disrupt. There are some exceptions, though, like when friendly targets keep you from using an area affect or you outright know that an enemy spellcaster is shielded wholly or in part against your available attacks.

Another exception is for spellcasters that simply don't have attack spells. In that case their only recourse is to ready actions to counterspell using dispel magic. Some scoff at the notion of such a mage, but there are those of us that do prefer playing a support role with our sor/wiz.

But reactive counterspelling changes this entirely. If you ready an action to try and fireball an enemy caster whenever he starts to cast, what if by some freak occurence he doesn't cast? Your action is totally forfeited. Or what if he's casting, but it's a non-attack spell (a buff or perhaps a teleport to escape)? It might have been more tactically advantageous to use your action otherwise in that event.

Enter reactive counterspelling. You simply delay your action until the end of the round. If anyone casts at any point during the round, you can use your action to counterspell, then leaving you with a move-equivalent action left when your turn does come up. So if no one casts or if you decide that no spells being cast are worth counterspelling, then you can do whatever you want on your turn; you didn't have to ready an action that could otherwise be forfeited.

And if you throw in other feats the option of specializing to counterspell could become very viable and effective in my opinion. The question is whether the proposed feats are balanced and have a place in the game. That's what I would love to know. Opinions on Counterspell Riposte from FFG's Paths of Magic. Opinions on converting the Focused Dispel ability into a feat and adding a Greater Focused Dispel that grants a cumulative, non-stacking +4 bonus. Opinions on whether mastery of counterspelling could/should be a feat, which is a very touchy subject because of the spectrum of opinions on the Archmage as a whole. And lastly, are there any feats that deal with counterspelling spell-like abilities? If not, what opinions are there on the idea of a feat that would allow that?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

With core rules (and only PHB feats) I absolutely agree. While counterspelling does enjoy the benefit of a 100% chance to work, you have to have the same exact spell memorized.

Not quite true -- you can also counterspell with dispel magic, which is by far the better method.