Ways to counter Harm

[gfunk]

Could someone please clarify if either of these strategies is effective vs. Harm? References would be greatly appreciated:

1) Use a Ring of Counterspells with Harm in it

2) Use a Rod of Absorption

Thanks!

 

[kreynolds]

Could someone please clarify if either of these strategies is effective vs. Harm? References would be greatly appreciated:

1) Use a Ring of Counterspells with Harm in it

2) Use a Rod of Absorption

A rod of absorption is effective against any spell that targets you or your gear.

As far as the Ring is concerned, I don't see why it wouldn't work, no matter where the spell is coming from, be it a cleric or druid.

 

[Thanee]

Just get one of those weapons (from MoF) that make you immune to one targeted spell.

Bye
Thanee

 

[gfunk]

The main question I had about the Ring of Counterspells is that touch spells are not actually cast upon you. The caster casts the spell, charges his hand, and can then discharge the spell against any target he sees fit.

Say, for instance, a cleric casts Harm and waits around for a few rounds. When his target (wearing a ring of counterspells) walks into view, the cleric runs up to him and discharges the spell. Did he really cast Harm upon the target? Or did he just discharge a previously existing spell?

 

[kreynolds]

The main question I had about the Ring of Counterspells is that touch spells are not actually cast upon you. The caster casts the spell, charges his hand, and can then discharge the spell against any target he sees fit.

Say, for instance, a cleric casts Harm and waits around for a few rounds. When his target (wearing a ring of counterspells) walks into view, the cleric runs up to him and discharges the spell. Did he really cast Harm upon the target? Or did he just discharge a previously existing spell?

This would be a good example of "reading to much into it". Just kidding. Seriously though, if you are specifically targeted, meaning if you, and nobody else, are the recipient of the spell then the ring counterspells it.

Casting a touch spell doesn't mean that your finger is the target of the spell. If that were true, it would really suck every time you cast harm.

 

[hong]

The main question I had about the Ring of Counterspells is that touch spells are not actually cast upon you. The caster casts the spell, charges his hand, and can then discharge the spell against any target he sees fit.

Say, for instance, a cleric casts Harm and waits around for a few rounds. When his target (wearing a ring of counterspells) walks into view, the cleric runs up to him and discharges the spell. Did he really cast Harm upon the target? Or did he just discharge a previously existing spell?

For game purposes, you look at the spell description to answer these sorts of questions. For harm, it says "Target: creature touched", meaning the guy who loses the hit points. The fact that you hold the spell in hand simply means that you haven't touched anyone yet.

 

[gfunk]

Thanks for the replies guys. Here is one more issue though:

Assuming that you are normally counterspelling something (e.g. make a Spellcraft check and cast the appropriate spell or Dispel), you can only do so while the spell is being cast. For instance, if someone is casting Harm you can ready an action to counterspell it while they are in the process of casting.

However, once the spell is already cast -- that is the cleric has the charge in his hand -- how can you counterspell it? Is the spell still considered to be in the "casting" phase for counterspelling purposes? I guess my reasoning is that if you can't counterspell it normally, how could the ring do it?

Finally, since you don't declare the target of Harm until you actually touch someone the Ring of Counterspells wouldn't seem to work in the casting phase.

 

[hong]

No, a spell "in hand" is considered to be cast already, and can't be counterspelled.

Hm, you have a point. It looks like a ring of counterspells wouldn't work on touch spells, unless the touch occurs as part of the casting action (which is allowed).

 

[Magus_Jerel]

The ring of counterspells doesn't work against touch spells.

The only way you could get this to happen in theory is if the defender were within striking distance as he cast the spell.

It's a big honking F.U.B.A.R. of touch spells and the "combat action system" that causes this; the "casting" and the "attack" action MAY be taken in the same action; but since you are probably in melee combat (drawing the AoO) it doesn't seem unbalancing. - so sayeth designers.

The inconsistency generated by this FUBAR is what is causing you to think that the ring of counterspells would work against the harm spell. For all purposes OTHER than the "round system" of action - the act of casting a touch spell is separate from actually smacking your foe with said spell.

The true headches for rules lawyers only come when you try to defty avoid that nasty AoO - and don't want to cast defensively and risk the spell.

 

[kreynolds]

No, a spell "in hand" is considered to be cast already, and can't be counterspelled.

Hm, you have a point. It looks like a ring of counterspells wouldn't work on touch spells, unless the touch occurs as part of the casting action (which is allowed).

Yep. Looks like the only option is to cast Dispel Magic on the cleric before he touches you, so I guess the ring is worthless. Wierd.