Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Evenglare" data-source="post: 5791587" data-attributes="member: 63245">I know pathfinder fixed many of the problems with the rift of fighter and wizard. So this probably doesnt apply as much to pathfinder as it would to 3.5 but anyway here is my idea.To get right down to it, magic users need to be able to shut down other magic users in fights relatively easily. So I'm thinking make counter-spelling much more commonplace. There are a few possible options I'm toying around with.The first option is that a caster may choose to sacrifice a spell slot and do the whole DC= 15 + spell level to see if it worked. This would easily reduce the effectiveness of wizards at high levels assuming they are fighting a wizard or other magical being. The second option is to let dispel be the only source of counter spelling however to do so remove the dispel check. Then counter as normal. Dispel is a 3rd level spell so I figured once that comes up the magic users are getting some of the more advanced spells as well as a way to dispel them. Dispel of course , would need to be prepared multiple times.Along with these options a couple of feats could be made to reduce the spell check for countering.A third option would be to implement some sort of fatigue or damage from casting a spell. This has been done before in the dragonlance setting. Whenever a spell would be cast, you would make a Fort save vs a DC = 10+ spell level , if failed you become fatigued, then exhaused, then unconscious. Other DCs to mess around with might be a DC = 15+spell level or a DC of 10 + Twice spell level. Now for melee classes such as a fighter there is a way to hand this I believe. One way would be to introduce a feat that would give the fighter a way to hone magical items to dispel a spell . The item would lose all it's properties for a day or something like that. TLDR - make counterspells more commonplace and easier to use.Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification