Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reichtfeld" data-source="post: 722139" data-attributes="member: 10264">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. On that same vein, though, Alertness really sucks the wind out of Skill Focus (listen)'s sails.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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... 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?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. 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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   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. 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.   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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification