using magic missle to disrupt a spell

[Runestar]

That is why of course, you must learn to word your intent astutely along the lines of "When wizard takes any action, I cast an orb of force at him", rather than pigeon-holing yourself with such a constraining trigger like "When he casts a spell".

Even though SLAs have no verbal or somatic components, there is still no mistaking the concentration required in activating it (why else do they provoke AoOs?), so your readied action should trigger.

 

[Jack Simth]

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?

Do note that "Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does" - as a DM, I'd let "Flame Strike him when he casts a spell" apply equally well to Scrolls and Spell-like abilities, no problem.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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).

This isn't strictly true, and the reason why is why I'm very dubious about the oft-repeated claim that counterspelling sucks.

Let's say you're a wizard in a party of four adventurers. You're facing the BBEG wizard.

In the D&D action economy, the ratio of wealth is 4-to-1. Your group gets four actions for every one the wizard takes. In other words, he's got 20 percent of the wealth.

If you, as the wizard, counterspell him every round, the ratio goes to 3-to-0. The BBEG drops from 20 percent of the effective actions on board, to none of the effective actions on board.

Now this analysis ignores a couple of things. It ignores the likely presence of minions and meatshields. It also ignores the possibility that attempts to counterspell might fail for various reasons. But both of those issues can be accounted for.

If in the situation above you only successfuly counterspell half the time, the ratio of effective actions still goes from 4-to-1 (20 percent) to 6-1 (17 percent), for example.

IMO, counterspelling is in the running for one of the most underused, yet potentially effective, tactics in 3.5.

(Note that I'm not directly addressing your argument that damage spells are a better way to counterspell. Just to be clear.)

 

[VanRichten]

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).

Actually you can counterspell a Spell Like Ability. Spell Like Abilities are just spells cast without Material components. They provoke attacks of opportunity just like casting a spell in melee, and require Verbal and Somatic components just like their spell's description.

I think you may be confusing them with Supernatural Abilities. Which while magical in nature do not provoke attacks of opportunity, cannot be counterspelled or disrupted and do not require concentration checks to use.

e.g. Spell Like Ability: Paladin uses Detect Evil. Supernatural Ability: A Paladin Turns Undead.

Edit: Incindently Spell Like and Supernatural abilities don't work inside a Dead Magic Zone or Anti-Magic Field. Meaning you could not Turn Undead inside one of those areas.

 

[Runestar]

Let's say you're a wizard in a party of four adventurers. You're facing the BBEG wizard.

In the D&D action economy, the ratio of wealth is 4-to-1. Your group gets four actions for every one the wizard takes. In other words, he's got 20 percent of the wealth.

If you, as the wizard, counterspell him every round, the ratio goes to 3-to-0. The BBEG drops from 20 percent of the effective actions on board, to none of the effective actions on board.

Possible, but unlikely, IMO.

A BBEG wizard will likely be several lvs higher than the average lv of the party. This means that he is probably capable of casting spells of a higher lv than the party's wizard, and with a greater caster lv. Meaning that the odds of succeeding at an opposed dispel check is harder, and hoping to counter effectively using the same spell (or a spell of the same school of 1 lv higher, if you are using improved counterspell) is virtually impossible. And you are trading spells at a 1:1 rate.

Conversely, consider the use of a lower lv damage spell. It is very possible to use a 4th lv slot to disrupt a wizard's 9th lv spell. You don't get a better deal than that.

IMO, counterspelling is in the running for one of the most underused, yet potentially effective, tactics in 3.5.

It is underused for a reason. Basically, I feel that counterspell remains underutilized for most part simply because better alternatives exist.

Actually you can counterspell a Spell Like Ability. Spell Like Abilities are just spells cast without Material components. They provoke attacks of opportunity just like casting a spell in melee, and require Verbal and Somatic components just like their spell's description.

Except for this little excerpt...

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Actually you can counterspell a Spell Like Ability. Spell Like Abilities are just spells cast without Material components. They provoke attacks of opportunity just like casting a spell in melee, and require Verbal and Somatic components just like their spell's description.

No, although it's an easy mistake to make. The types of magic are confusing. From the SRD:

"A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Conversely, consider the use of a lower lv damage spell. It is very possible to use a 4th lv slot to disrupt a wizard's 9th lv spell. You don't get a better deal than that.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you on the efficacy of damaging spells used to disrupt spellcasting, but I gotta tell you ... any 17th level wizard who isn't keeping himself behind a globe of invulnerability deserves to die fast.

 

[WhatGravitas]

It is underused for a reason. Basically, I feel that counterspell remains underutilized for most part simply because better alternatives exist.

Exactly. The main problem is that it's so situational - there are cases where it's better than lobbing a readied force orb at the target. The problem is just to anticipate these situations. Readying a force orb may not work, but it usually deals damage and does something, whereas counterspelling can do nothing.

So for generic situations, the interruption via damage is the more secure option, whereas counterspelling is very specialised. And against opponents you don't know, going the safe route is probably a sound decision.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Runestar]

Though it is worth noting that I am a fan of the reactive counterspell feat, even though I rarely ever have the spare feats to take it. I like the idea of being able to go about my normal business as per usual, but still having the option to counterspell as an immediate action should the need ever come up (typically if my party is about to be smacked by some completely game-altering spell).

It is like the best of both worlds, since I can still counterspell without having to ready an action.

 

[Delta]

This isn't strictly true, and the reason why is why I'm very dubious about the oft-repeated claim that counterspelling sucks.

Personally, I think it sucks even more than the grandparent poster makes it out. The problem is definitely the action economy, and that you have to target one specific caster on your turn for counterspelling. Thus, by the RAW, counterspelling fails in any of the following cases:

(1) You don't know who the caster is in an opposing group.
(2) The enemy caster casts something and is out-of-range for the requisite countering spell.
(3) You fail your Spellcraft check to identify the spell.
(4) You don't have the right counterspell available (exception: Dispel Magic).
(5) The enemies have 2 or more casters, you target A, and B does something devastating.
(6) The enemy caster is dual-purpose and makes a physical attack instead of casting.
(7) The enemy caster is invisible or otherwise un-targetable.

These problems are so numerous I can't see how anyone gets through the whole checklist successfully in a normal combat to make it work. The only exception, as you note, is a 4:1 fight against a solitary, targetable, spell-only figure with no wand/staff -- and I'd think those situations are very rare.

With direct damage you can technically say "I ready to shoot fireball at anyone who starts a spell or spell-like device" and neatly capture all these cases.