Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4516225" data-attributes="member: 72317">None of which are applicable to orb of force.<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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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 &quot;counterspell&quot; 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!<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />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). <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Is your wizard capable of consistently making DC50+ concentration checks? Of course, that is assuming he survives that damage spell in the first place...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Runestar, post: 4516225, member: 72317"] 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!:lol: 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). :) Is your wizard capable of consistently making DC50+ concentration checks? Of course, that is assuming he survives that damage spell in the first place... [/QUOTE]

Verification