using magic missle to disrupt a spell

[irdeggman]

And you have just discovered the reason why counterspelling is such a worthless option in 3e...

Ahh but you can counterspell with a spell that does no damage unlike a forced concentration check.

Dispel Magic always has a chance for counterspelling but does not do damage.

 

[Oni]

Something that's always bothered me about readying and action in terms of spells is what they imply in the gameworld. If I ready an action to cast a spell if my opponent cast a spell, He starts casting I see him casting and then I cast and complete my spell before he can? What if he was casting feather fall for instance, somehow you still your magic missle or whatever have you before he does. It just seems weird to me and it's always bothered me ever since I noticed it years ago. I wish they had just made better countering rules.

 

[Rackhir]

Something that's always bothered me about readying and action in terms of spells is what they imply in the gameworld. If I ready an action to cast a spell if my opponent cast a spell, He starts casting I see him casting and then I cast and complete my spell before he can? What if he was casting feather fall for instance, somehow you still your magic missle or whatever have you before he does. It just seems weird to me and it's always bothered me ever since I noticed it years ago. I wish they had just made better countering rules.

It's an inescapable artifact of a "I go/You go" system. The only system that I ever saw that made a real go of changing something like that was the impulse system in Star Fleet Battles. The sequence of play for each of the 32 impulses in a turn eventually consumed 2-3 pages of small double column type...

 

[Runestar]

Ahh but you can counterspell with a spell that does no damage unlike a forced concentration check.

Dispel Magic always has a chance for counterspelling but does not do damage.

So why not just prepare damage spells instead? Counterspelling is a zero sum game - you are trading spells with the opponent at a 1:1 rate (at best). If you lack the proper spell to counter, you have just wasted a standard action for nothing.

Conversely, with the damage spell, you damage the foe, and in practice, the concentration check is typically high enough that he has no chance of ever making it successfully, so it is as good as success.

 

[Legildur]

Conversely, with the damage spell, you damage the foe, and in practice, the concentration check is typically high enough that he has no chance of ever making it successfully, so it is as good as success.

ASsuming you are able to damage the foe... i.e. that he doesn't have some sort of resistance to what you are attempting to damage him with.

 

[irdeggman]

ASsuming you are able to damage the foe... i.e. that he doesn't have some sort of resistance to what you are attempting to damage him with.

And that is one of the biggest reasons for counterspelling.

SR, energy resistance and/or good saving throws.

Counterspelling is not effected by any of the above.

Damage inflicting spells also have their spell disruption ability negated by a very high concentration check while counterspelling is not. It is easier to find items that boost concentration checks, saving throws or SR then it is for caster level (which is the key factor for counterspelling).

Both methods of disrupting a spell have their uses and neither is universally better.

 

[Jack Simth]

And that is one of the biggest reasons for counterspelling.

SR, energy resistance and/or good saving throws.

Counterspelling is not effected by any of the above.

Damage inflicting spells also have their spell disruption ability negated by a very high concentration check while counterspelling is not. It is easier to find items that boost concentration checks, saving throws or SR then it is for caster level (which is the key factor for counterspelling).

Both methods of disrupting a spell have their uses and neither is universally better.

Do note: For counterspelling, you only need a high caster level if you're using (Greater) Dispel Magic or similar. For regular counterspelling (i.e., countering Darkness with Daylight) caster level doesn't matter.

In most cases, though, hitting your opponent with something like a Flame Strike or an Orb of Force will be more effective overall.

 

[Runestar]

And that is one of the biggest reasons for counterspelling.

SR, energy resistance and/or good saving throws.

None of which are applicable to orb of force.

I do not deny that if you squint hard enough, you can find a few advantages that counterspelling has over simply smacking the enemy wizard with a damage spell. You too can argue that the wizard may have various spell protections in place, such as mirror image, displacement, ray deflection and the like, which may make hitting him successfully an issue.

But I believe that on an expected value basis, you should get more mileage out of trying to "counterspell" by readying a damage spell, rather than simply going the counterspelling route. Yes, that odd scenario may crop up ever so infrequently where you find that counterspelling is better, but I daresay that for the rest, the former is simply more effective and efficient.

Greater dispelling has a +20 caster lv cap, and is a 6th lv spell. Orb of (insert whatever element) is a 4th lv spell by comparison. For every fight not being able to counterspell reliably may end up costing me, I daresay that simply being able to smack the magic-user for tons of damage and potentially ruining his spell will easily win me 10 times as many!

Not to mention that said method has another advantage over conventional counterspells - it can also be used to disrupt SLAs, which are normally immune to counterspelling (by definition).

Damage inflicting spells also have their spell disruption ability negated by a very high concentration check while counterspelling is not.

Is your wizard capable of consistently making DC50+ concentration checks? Of course, that is assuming he survives that damage spell in the first place...

 

[Jack Simth]

Is your wizard capable of consistently making DC50+ concentration checks? Of course, that is assuming he survives that damage spell in the first place...

Heh - funny how a single caster level 10 Fireball does an average of 35 damage on a failed save... which, if your opponent is casting a 5th level spell, means a DC 50 Concentration check (DC 33, give or take, on a successful reflex save without evasion).

There will be times when yes, your opponent CAN make that kind of concentration check (Great Wyrm Dragon, perhaps); but for the most part, yeah, readying Direct Damage to counterspell will be better.

 

[akbearfoot]

Of course, the observant wizard may notice your pause and guess your plan.

Then all he has to do is pull out a scroll or staff or potion from his haversack, and activate that instead....nope, not casting a spell, so no triggering of the readied action. I'd have to look it up to know if it would even stop a spell like ability, since they are implicitly not spells....Do you ready an action to interrupt the Illithid sorcerer's spells, or his Psi-like abilities?