Better Counterspelling

[Surgo]

I'm playing a mage in an upcoming campaign and was pretty disappointed with the way the rules for counterspelling worked, so I wrote these. If you wish, you can use them under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).

Better Counterspelling
Everyone who has played a magic user for any length of time has probably noticed that the counterspelling rules totally suck. Why would you ever spend an action to counterspell, when instead you could spend an action blasting the spellcaster in the face, thus forcing them to make a concentration check that they will certainly fail -- accomplishing the same thing as well as piling more damage on them?

In addition, there's an entire section of the combat mechanics that, while spellcasters have them available to them, they are almost entirely useless outside of specialized builds -- attacks of opportunity. Wouldn't it be nice to fix both of these problems at once? To that end, I suggest the following replacement for the counterspelling rules.

A spellcaster can counter any spell that traces its line of effect through their square. This counterspelling area can be extended to their normal threatened area by using a magic weapon with which they are proficient (wizards commonly use staves for this purpose). To counter a spell, the spellcaster makes an Attack of Opportunity on the spell against an armor class equal to the spell's saving throw DC, or the DC it would have if the spell allowed for a saving throw. If they hit, the spell is successfully dispelled. Dispelling a spell in this fashion requires expending a spell slot greater than or equal to the target spell's slot, or a dispel magic or greater dispel magic spell. If a dispel magic effect is used to counterspell, it must pass the caster level check as per the original counterspelling rules.

Finally, dispel magic and greater dispel magic become spells with an immediate-action casting time. They can counter other spells by making a dispel check, as per the original counterspelling rules.

Metagame Effects

Using this variant has the following effects on the game:

* Spellcasters become better able to shut down other spellcasters.
* Sorcerers become particularly good at shutting down other spellcasters, because they can always have access to a dispel magic.
* Gives the spellcasters a reason to care about their attacks of opportunities and having a magic weapon.
* Can bring the spellcasters to the front, if they want to shield a weak-saving-throw party member from a charm monster.
* Clerics are good at counterspelling -- they're already at the front and often have good reach available to them.

I believe that the above metagame effects are either good or neutral. And remember, the old counterspelling rules -- blast the target in the face -- still apply!

[Milskidasith]

You over buffed dispel magic; auto super quickening is nice.

[Surgo]

I do not believe I did; dispel magic wasn't a great spell anyway.

[Milskidasith]

I do not believe I did; dispel magic wasn't a great spell anyway.

You are joking, right? It's a staple of casters for a reason.

[Surgo]

You are joking, right? It's a staple of casters for a reason.

Give me a break. Dispel Magic is a purely reactive spell, and you are better almost all the time casting a spell to actually do something -- like Fear (a similarly leveled spell). The mechanics are absolutely awful, with area dispels barely accomplishing anything and targeted dispels requiring 10+ rolls.

This work is not an overhaul of dispel magic, but giving it a bit of a buff is pretty much a non-issue.

[Siosilvar]

Counterspelling by hitting things with a stick is an... interesting concept. However, it does explain why wizards carry staves - though a dagger works just as well.


Perhaps...
Counterspelling
A counterspelling weapon may be used to counterspell spells as though it had reach.

Counterspelling can only be added to bludgeoning weapons.

Cost: +1 bonus.

[Milskidasith]

Give me a break. Dispel Magic is a purely reactive spell, and you are better almost all the time casting a spell to actually do something -- like Fear (a similarly leveled spell). The mechanics are absolutely awful, with area dispels barely accomplishing anything and targeted dispels requiring 10+ rolls.

This work is not an overhaul of dispel magic, but giving it a bit of a buff is pretty much a non-issue.

Dispel magic is practically necessary to deal with many buffs. If you don't see how removing attack bonuses, flight, immunities, caster level buffs, frigging arcan spellsurge, etc. is good, I don't know what you think is good. It's not flashy, but it is already very good.

[Susano-wo]

and how about the fact that in order to Counter without improved counterspell you pretty much need to prep it?

But I've always hated how freakin hard it is to Counterspell as well. Making it AoO like is very cool. I like it! (and the magic weapon bit is nice as well)

[Temotei]

Dispel magic is practically necessary to deal with many buffs. If you don't see how removing attack bonuses, flight, immunities, caster level buffs, frigging arcan spellsurge, etc. is good, I don't know what you think is good. It's not flashy, but it is already very good.

Agreed. Dispel magic doesn't need any help.

[Siosilvar]

Hrm... I've always wanted an immediate-action counterspell, but making Dispel Magic an immediate action no matter what does bring up issues...


So add to the "counterspell" section at the end of Dispel Magic:

Counterspell
When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster’s spell. When cast as a counterspell, Dispel Magic may be used as an immediate action.

[Surgo]

Again, I don't see why anyone would ever cast dispel magic instead of a spell that actually does something like stinking cloud. If you are actually concerned, please come up with a situation you think dispel magic is worthwhile and we can perform a statistical analysis as to whether or not it's better than casting another spell.

However, since this is not a dispel magic overhaul, I see no problem with Siosilvar's clause.

[Milskidasith]

Again, I don't see why anyone would ever cast dispel magic instead of a spell that actually does something like stinking cloud. If you are actually concerned, please come up with a situation you think dispel magic is worthwhile and we can perform a statistical analysis as to whether or not it's better than casting another spell.

However, since this is not a dispel magic overhaul, I see no problem with Siosilvar's clause.

Here's the situation: They have any powerful buff up, ever. Or multiple powerful, long duration buffs. In that case, dispel magic is A: more likely to work than a save or die (50% against an even CL, while saves are a lot easier to pump than save DCs, especially when the guy is buffing himself), and B: You're going to drop their stats faster than with common debuffs. Or if you want to target a magic item (with a chain dispel magic, you can target all of them!). Or if you're at low level and they have globe of invulnerability up so none of your spells work anyway. Or if you want to make them weak to whatever spells you had prepared because really, you can be immune to basically anything with the right spells and dispel magic lets you counter that.

[Surgo]

Here's the situation: They have any powerful buff up, ever. Or multiple powerful, long duration buffs. In that case, dispel magic is A: more likely to work than a save or die (50% against an even CL, while saves are a lot easier to pump than save DCs, especially when the guy is buffing himself), and B: You're going to drop their stats faster than with common debuffs. Or if you want to target a magic item (with a chain dispel magic, you can target all of them!). Or if you're at low level and they have globe of invulnerability up so none of your spells work anyway. Or if you want to make them weak to whatever spells you had prepared because really, you can be immune to basically anything with the right spells and dispel magic lets you counter that.

Can you please give an actual situation, so statistical analysis can be performed? You're just waving your hands and saying "in this case it's more likely to work", which you can't prove because you haven't actually given what that case is.

Or give multiple ones. Whatever. Any situation you think that dispel magic is better. Just be specific.

[Milskidasith]

Can you please give an actual situation, so statistical analysis can be performed? You're just waving your hands and saying "in this case it's more likely to work", which you can't prove because you haven't actually given what that case is.

Or give multiple ones. Whatever. Any situation you think that dispel magic is better. Just be specific.

The enemy has Mind Blank up, and you've got Dominate Person as your only high level will save targeting spell prepped, while they have great saves everywhere else.

The enemy has the amulet that lets you breathe anything, troll blooded, energy immunity (fire), energy immunity (acid), and the spell that makes you immune to nonlethal damage (blood of the martyr? I can't remember).

Globe of invulnerability, as previously stated.

They're a gish with Haste, Shield, Greater Mage Armor, Tenser's Transformation, Greater Magic Weapon, and Persistent Wraithstrike up.

Any enemy with a bunch of gear + Chain (greater) Dispel Magic. This one works on everybody.

Etc, etc. Are you really telling me you can see no situation where the enemies buffs are worth more? And are you honestly asking me to go and build a bunch of different characters just to prove that dispelling them would be a good thing?

[lesser_minion]

I don't see an issue with being able to immediate a dispel magic in response to one particular situation, but being able to immediate it whenever you want is asking for trouble.

So I'm going to second Siosilvar's recommendation.

I assume that you don't expend the spell on a failed counterspelling attempt, right?

[Surgo]

The enemy has Mind Blank up, and you've got Dominate Person as your only high level will save targeting spell prepped, while they have great saves everywhere else.

The enemy has the amulet that lets you breathe anything, troll blooded, energy immunity (fire), energy immunity (acid), and the spell that makes you immune to nonlethal damage (blood of the martyr? I can't remember).

Globe of invulnerability, as previously stated.

They're a gish with Haste, Shield, Greater Mage Armor, Tenser's Transformation, Greater Magic Weapon, and Persistent Wraithstrike up.

Any enemy with a bunch of gear + Chain (greater) Dispel Magic. This one works on everybody.

In order:

#1: The enemy has an 8th level spell up, and your only available offensive spell is a 5th level spell? Are a priest and a rabbi going to walk in next?

#2: Stinking Cloud is better than Dispel Magic.

#3: Yes, this is a legitimate situation where dispel magic is useful.

#4: Stinking Cloud, which instead of giving you a 50% chance of getting rid of a key buff, gives you a chance of outright removing them from combat (given how you didn't tell me what their save is, I can't begin to speculate on that percentage; this is why I said to be specific)

#5: This is one I can't argue with, but you'll note that I only allowed dispel and greater dispel to be immediate actions, not other dispels -- thus rendering this point entirely moot.


Etc, etc. Are you really telling me you can see no situation where the enemies buffs are worth more? And are you honestly asking me to go and build a bunch of different characters just to prove that dispelling them would be a good thing
No, I'm not saying there is no such situation, I'm saying it's way more rare than you think it is and dispel magic is a lot more worthless than you think it is. I'm not telling you to build a bunch of different characters, I'm telling you to put what you believe to the test, so you can find out whether your beliefs are true or false. In any possible case we can give actual percentages of success to tell us whether or not dispel is better. I expect to find that dispel is almost always worse than casting the same spell twice. Let us see if that is true or not.

[Milskidasith]

I give up. I see no point in trying to build a bunch of different characters just to prove something to you. If you don't think that buffs are worth getting rid of, that's your opinion, and it seems you have no intent to change that opinion.

Also, Chain Spell is a metamagic; you can use it with your immediate action dispels.

[Surgo]

I give up. I see no point in trying to build a bunch of different characters just to prove something to you. If you don't think that buffs are worth getting rid of, that's your opinion, and it seems you have no intent to change that opinion.

There's no opinion here -- either dispel magic is better than casting the same spell twice, or it's worse. That's not opinion -- that's probability, and that's fact.

[Siosilvar]

I assume that you don't expend the spell on a failed counterspelling attempt, right?

That one's probably better as a class feature somewhere... maybe an ACF for an abjurer, replacing the familiar.

[Milskidasith]

There's no opinion here -- either dispel magic is better than casting the same spell twice, or it's worse. That's not opinion -- that's probability, and that's fact.

This assumes you have complete information at all times. Anyway, the basic situations I posited: The enemy has a buff granting immunity/their buffs are a major part of their offensive capability will be make dispelling useful.

[lesser_minion]

That one's probably better as a class feature somewhere... maybe an ACF for an abjurer, replacing the familiar.

I mean if you miss, not if you fail a dispel check.

On the subject of the dispel magic argument, any opponent who is sufficiently well-defended is going to need a dispel magic first.

Also, immediate action dispel magic makes TLN's "poor man's disjunction" trick a lot easier to perform. Whether that's actually broken or not is up to you -- after all, warlocks can do the same thing at-will.

[Siosilvar]

I mean if you miss, not if you fail a dispel check.My statement still applies. :smallwink:

[Surgo]

I assume that you don't expend the spell on a failed counterspelling attempt, right?
Right now they do expend the spell, but this is a point that I'm not sure about.


On the subject of the dispel magic argument, any opponent who is sufficiently well-defended is going to need a dispel magic first.
Again, can you please give an actual situation here. No more handwaving, this thread has been enough of it. We can calculate actual percentages for this!


This assumes you have complete information at all times.
Once again, it's not subjective whether casting dispel is better or worse. This isn't "what does the caster think is better", this is what is better.

[Milskidasith]

OK, fine, I'll relent, here's a specific example.

The guy you're fighting has Globe of Invulnerability up. You only have up to third level spells.

Dispel Magic works on it, otherwise, you can't do anything.

Other example:

Level 13 DMM Persist Cleric with a base CL of 14 with Superior Resistance (+6 to all saves), Divine Power, a bead of Karma, Visage of the Diety, Greater Magic Weapon, Righteous Might, and Spell Resistance (boosted by the Bead of Karma effect).

If you attempt to cast, you need to break through SR 30 to hit with any spells, and then the cleric has a +6 to all saves against your spell before the bonuses from the other spells listed.

If you dispel: The cleric is likely to lose a good few of the all day buffs, although the spell resistance might stay. If you have the same base CL (14) your Dispel is likely to end 50% of all of the effects besides Spell Resistance, which it is only 30% likely to end.

EDIT: And of course, any situation you have access to the chain spell metamagic, chain dispel is gong to be practically your best combat option. And add in a dispelling cord (cheap +2 to dispel effects) and you're likely to, overall, grab an extra buff or two against a heavily buffed opponent.

Another opponent could be the Troll Blooded, Energy Immune (fire and acid), Immume to Nonlethal, Superior Resistance buffed, item immune to breathing effects, undead type, "there is no way to hurt me" build where you'd need to either A: hit very high saves or B: dispel and then use traditional tactics against.

[Surgo]

Finally, some situations!

The guy you're fighting has Globe of Invulnerability up. You only have up to third level spells.
As already mentioned, this is a situation where dispel magic is useful. However, I'm going to have to call shenanigans here, because Globe of Invulnerability is a 6th level spell, so how would you only have third level spells?

Same deal for Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, which is 4th -- you have third only? I thought the two opponents were supposed to have equal caster level in this exercise?


Level 13 DMM Persist Cleric with a base CL of 14 with Superior Resistance (+6 to all saves), Divine Power, a bead of Karma, Visage of the Diety, Greater Magic Weapon, Righteous Might, and Spell Resistance (boosted by the Bead of Karma effect).
And since we're supposed to have equal level, our level is 13. First of all, this exercise is nonsense because every cleric spell is going to be boosted by the Bead of Karma, not just Spell Resistance. It lasts for 10 minutes, meaning all of the persistent and extended spells get the benefit.

Let's say their fortitude save is +22, a conservative number. Now, you could cast Greater Dispel Magic, and have a 30% chance to end Superior Resistance, and then cast Flesh to Stone. Since our mage is pumping intelligence (obviously), and I'll assume a similar optimization level, he'd have a 34 in that score by this point, which gives a DC of 28. Without Dispel Magic, we have an 17.5% chance of success from just casting two Flesh to Stones.

With Dispel Magic followed by Flesh to Stone, we have the following chance of success from mutually exclusive events:
- Did not dispel either superior resistance or spell resistance: .6 * .6 * .25 * .4 = 3.6%
- Did dispel superior resistance, did not dispel spell resistance: .4 * .6 * .55 * .4 = 5.2%
- Did not dispel superior resistance, did dispel spell resistance: .6 * .4 * .25 = 6%
- Dispelled both: 8.8%
- Sum: 23.6%

Winner: Greater Dispel Magic, by 6.1%.

You have presented a situation where Greater Dispel Magic manages to sneak by Flesh to Stone. However, I wouldn't yet say that Greater Dispel Magic is better. In this case, you could just cast two Shivering Touches (Save: None, SR: None) for an almost guaranteed KO, vs a 23.6% KO. Shivering Touch is kind of cheesy though, so you could just use Acid Fog for a 100% chance to remove the cleric from combat (Save: No, SR: No, only one spell cast instead of two) -- that's better than Greater Dispel Magic too.

That said, Greater Dispel Magic is better than casting Flesh to Stone twice.


Another opponent could be the Troll Blooded, Energy Immune (fire and acid), Immume to Nonlethal, Superior Resistance buffed, item immune to breathing effects, undead type, "there is no way to hurt me" build where you'd need to either A: hit very high saves or B: dispel and then use traditional tactics against.
Just like this last example, "hit very high saves" can be and often is a better idea than dispel.


EDIT: And of course, any situation you have access to the chain spell metamagic, chain dispel is gong to be practically your best combat option. And add in a dispelling cord (cheap +2 to dispel effects) and you're likely to, overall, grab an extra buff or two against a heavily buffed opponent.
Again, not necessarily true -- probability.

[jiriku]

I'll throw my hat in the ring:

Situation 1:
You are a cleric, level 13. Defensive build, focused on buffing, healing, divination, and utility spells. Enemy is a druid, level 13. You do not know what buffs the druid has up, but he appears to be a flying cloud-winged six-legged werebear landshark wreathed in an aura of flame, and your in-game knowledge is that he is both wily and clever with a reputation for being well-prepared. You do not know his battle tactics, but you've fought his minions repeatedly so he probably knows yours.

Enemy druid's buff list:
bite of the werebear
aspect of the earth hunter
girallon's blessing
barkskin +5
greater blindsight
healthful rest
longstrider
rapid burrowing
true seeing
maximized body of the sun
resist 30 vs. acid
resist 30 vs. cold
resist 30 vs. electricity
resist 30 vs. fire
resist 30 vs. sonic
protection from sonic (120 damage shield)
master air
cloud wings
freedom of movement

Buffed saves are Fort +20, Ref +10, Will +18. Cleric's Wisdom is 24, so base save DC for the cleric' spells is 17 + spell level.


Situation 2:
You are a spellcasting NPC opponent facing a party of level 8 PCs. All PCs are buffed with the following:

Buffs on every PC:
magic vestment on all weapons and armor
resist 20 vs. acid
resist 20 vs. cold
resist 20 vs. electricity
resist 20 vs. fire
resist 20 vs. sonic
barkskin
heroism
shield other
ebon eyes
conviction

for a net +2 to hit, +8 AC, +4 saves, 1/2 damage from all attacks (cleric takes remainder and has another spell granting 40 temporary hit points), can see in magical darkness. Party members are either spread out 20+ feet from each other or in close with your allies, so it is difficult to catch more than two of them with an AoE effect.


Situation 1 was a recent encounter in my RL game, while situation 2 is the likely scenario facing the OpFor in a PBP game I'm preparing to play in.

Edit: I'm home now and have access to the druid's stat block for scenario 1. Updating for more accurate numbers.

[Milskidasith]

Same deal for Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, which is 4th -- you have third only? I thought the two opponents were supposed to have equal caster level in this exercise?


I never stated they had to have equal caster level. I stated it for a later one, yes, but in this case, it's perfectly reasonable for a boss encounter to have higher stuff than you, or to have burned a scroll.


And since we're supposed to have equal level, our level is 13. First of all, this exercise is nonsense because every cleric spell is going to be boosted by the Bead of Karma, not just Spell Resistance. It lasts for 10 minutes, meaning all of the persistent and extended spells get the benefit.

That's completely untrue unless the cleric used his Bead of Karma to buff his spellcasting earlier in the day; it boosts your caster level, yes, but that doesn't affect spells already cast.


Let's say their fortitude save is +22, a conservative number. Now, you could cast Greater Dispel Magic, and have a 30% chance to end Superior Resistance, and then cast Flesh to Stone. Since our mage is pumping intelligence (obviously), and I'll assume a similar optimization level, he'd have a 34 in that score by this point, which gives a DC of 28. Without Dispel Magic, we have an 17.5% chance of success from just casting two Flesh to Stones.

With Dispel Magic followed by Flesh to Stone, we have the following chance of success from mutually exclusive events:
- Did not dispel either superior resistance or spell resistance: .6 * .6 * .25 * .4 = 3.6%
- Did dispel superior resistance, did not dispel spell resistance: .4 * .6 * .55 * .4 = 5.2%
- Did not dispel superior resistance, did dispel spell resistance: .6 * .4 * .25 = 6%
- Dispelled both: 8.8%
- Sum: 23.6%

Winner: Greater Dispel Magic, by 6.1%.

You have presented a situation where Greater Dispel Magic manages to sneak by Flesh to Stone. However, I wouldn't yet say that Greater Dispel Magic is better. In this case, you could just cast two Shivering Touches (Save: None, SR: None) for an almost guaranteed KO, vs a 23.6% KO. Shivering Touch is kind of cheesy though, so you could just use Acid Fog for a 100% chance to remove the cleric from combat (Save: No, SR: No, only one spell cast instead of two) -- that's better than Greater Dispel Magic too.

That said, Greater Dispel Magic is better than casting Flesh to Stone twice.

Acid Fog doesn't guarantee anything. The cleric can A: move out of it and B: still cast perfectly well from within it. Solid Fog even explicitly states you can use rays from within it (albeit at a -2 penalty and with concealment), and AoE spells still work, as does any form of teleportation (Anklets of Translocation guarantee the cleric is out within the round).

It seems odd you'd vastly overestimate the power of a spell when that's what you accused me of doing.



Just like this last example, "hit very high saves" can be and often is a better idea than dispel.

The listed opponent is literally immune to most everything before being debuffed. The only things it isn't immune to are things such as paralysis, which, while normally a save or die, is meaningless because you can't CDG it.



Again, not necessarily true -- probability.

Gear has a low caster level. Dispelling all of the opponents gear as a standard action is immensely powerful; making it an immediate action is simply broken. Getting rid of buffs and gear is likely to drop a creatures saves by an incredibly massive amount, to the point that, if they aren't something like a sorcadin with high charisma and charisma to saves (or charisma to saves twice, if it's some gestalt build), they're going to fail against nearly all of your spells. It's also likely to make them completely worthless in combat; without gear, only casters can really do OK (and low op ToB, I suppose, since they can still strike with their fists and that explicitly doesn't provoke AoOs, IIRC).

[Hyooz]

How good Dispel Magic is notwithstanding, this is still really bad.

For one, I'm now really limited in what spells I could counterspell. Sure, before I had to ready an action to do it, but I didn't have to be in the direct line of fire (or right next to it) to use this.

I also suddenly have to invest in Strength and a magic weapon for counterspelling to be effective. Let's say we have two level 10 Wizards. One casts Cloudkill, and the Line of Effect happens to be close enough to the other Wizard. The DC for this is going to be 15 + the wizard's Int, which will probably be +5 if he started with an 18 and put his stat bonuses where they count. So we're looking at a 20 AC before any kind of DC boosters the Wizard might have (which a good wizard will have.)

A level 10 wizard has a BAB of +5 and if he's lucky, 10 Strength. He has at least a +1 weapon, probably no more than that because he's a wizard, so we're looking at needing a 14 just to hit the spell, then be out a 5th level or do more rolling and hoping to use one of the Dispel Spells. Depending on when the requisite spell slot is expended, this could suck even more (if it has to be expended to even try counterspelling.)

This isn't better counterspelling so much as counterspelling that sucks in a different way. Sure, it makes CoDzilla the only reliable counterspeller, but do we really need to give that more?

[jiriku]

I actually like the concept of using an AoO to counterspell, and needing to be within the line of effect, but I wonder what the effects on gameplay would be. Thinking this through:

If you're armed with a magic weapon, any spell that targets you will have to pass through a square you threaten, and you'll have a chance to counterspell it. Ok, that's good.
If you have considerable reach, you can better protect your allies. I'm not sure if this is good. On the one hand, I can see the giant-sized evil wizard laughing maniacallly as he swats aside the player's spells...but on the other hand I can see that a counterspell-focused PC is now an enlarged, spike-chained wielding wizard. That slaps the genre across the face as far as I'm concerned.
Gish characters and CoDzillas are actually the best counterspellers, because the higher attack bonus ensures they can swat spells more reliably. Given that this is a swords & sorcery genre, I don't have a problem with that, but I dislike that a good counterspeller needs intermediate-to-advanced character-building skills. As Hyooz pointed out, a straight wizard can't hit the spell AC. And a duskblade, for example, hasn't got the higher-level spell slots or access to the right dispels.
Casters can't easily fortify their dispelling except by boosting caster level, while it's pretty easy to boost attack bonus. I guess that's ok, since spellcasting is OP anyway.
Overall, I'd say this is a strong concept, but could use a little fine-tuning and playtest, because it represents a radical departure from the basic rules and might interact with the game mechanics in unexpected ways.


Suggestions:

Tune the AC of a spell towards a medium or poor attack bonus, and restrict the AoO to the squares immediately adjacent to the counterspeller. This makes the attack roll more realistic, and eliminates the spectre of the colossal spiked-chain wielding counterspeller.
Do specify that dispel and greater dispel can only be used as immediate actions when used to counterspell.
Add dispelling touch and slashing dispel to the list of spells that can counter in this fashion, so the duskblade gets his fair share of the action.

[Surgo]

Most recent posts first (sorry!)


For one, I'm now really limited in what spells I could counterspell. Sure, before I had to ready an action to do it, but I didn't have to be in the direct line of fire (or right next to it) to use this.
No, you don't. The old method of counterspelling (blast them in the face with mega damage) still works just fine. In addition, you can now cast an immediate action Dispel to counterspell the old way as well.

You do bring up a good point that this shouldn't be strength-based, though. I shall edit it so it is with whatever stat you cast spells with.


Acid Fog doesn't guarantee anything. The cleric can A: move out of it and B: still cast perfectly well from within it. Solid Fog even explicitly states you can use rays from within it (albeit at a -2 penalty and with concealment), and AoE spells still work, as does any form of teleportation (Anklets of Translocation guarantee the cleric is out within the round).

It seems odd you'd vastly overestimate the power of a spell when that's what you accused me of doing.
Two notes:

1) I mentioned Shivering Touch, where you'll get 6d6 dex damage and a probable death. You'd go there long before acid fog or dispel.
2) Everything a cleric persists will be done at the beginning of the day in Bead of Karma time -- also they're cheap enough to have on hand for every combat!


I'll throw my hat in the ring:
Finally, some scenarios!

Situation 1: As far as I can tell, none of these actually effect saving throws, though some add immunities (so you can't use Hold Person). I don't believe Druids even get those spells anyway. There are three possible things:

1: You're a Battle Cleric, in which case Dispel Magic was already useful and is now better because you can cast it fast. No argument from me here that this is a buff, I just don't think it's enough of one to get overexcited about.
2: You want to cast a spell. Looking down the cleric spell list, Destruction works fine (DC 24, 20% chance of success). Dispel Magic doesn't even enter the picture.
3: Cast a Bead of Karma-powered Blasphemy, and have a friend beat the snot out of the druid while he's dazed. Again, Dispel Magic doesn't even enter the picture.

This situation is impossible to compare because there's no comparing to even be done.

Situation 2:
We'll assume for simplicity I can catch two at most with an AoE spell. Forgive me, but I don't actually know the spell "Conviction" :-(

You'd do targeted dispels only, as area dispels are completely worthless. Stinking Cloud cuts through all the spells except Heroism, Fear does the same and can probably effect three instead of two. For numerical simplicity and because I have no graphing software, I'm going to just use Fear and assume they have a 75% chance of making the save post-buff. (Did not run calculations before pulling this number out of the air.)

Two fears: 43.75% chance of taking each person caught in the fear out of combat.
Dispel (vs heroism) then fear: 30% chance of taking out the dispelled person, less than that for taking out the un-dispelled.

Winner here: Fear (or Stinking Cloud).

Two notes though: even though this kind of depends on what your minions can do, you don't want to do targeted dispels against 8 enemies -- you'll be dead long before you get anywhere against them; you are much better off just firing at them. Liberal usage of Solid Fog helps too. I think you can easily convince yourself of that.

Yet, with an immediate action Dispel, this becomes a lot more interesting tactically, because now you can dispel a guy and do other stuff at the same time -- letting your minions also have a fighting chance. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Dispel buff is a good thing here.

[Darth Stabber]

Another option, add a dispel that is specific to countering, and is an immediate action, but can't replicate the other effects of dispel magic. What level would you rate this and it's greater version at?

Cancel
sorc/wiz x
Abjuration
cast time: Immediate action
target: 1 spell being cast.

As the counter-spell function of Dispel Magic

Alternately some kind of system that reduces the caster levels when you try to dispel it, making it less likely to completely counter but more likely to reduce it's effectiveness.

Meddling Screech
sorc/wiz x
Abjuration
cast time: Immediate action
target: 1 spell being cast.
save:?

Subtract your caster level from the caster level of the targeted spell

[Milskidasith]

Most recent posts first (sorry!)


No, you don't. The old method of counterspelling (blast them in the face with mega damage) still works just fine. In addition, you can now cast an immediate action Dispel to counterspell the old way as well.

You do bring up a good point that this shouldn't be strength-based, though. I shall edit it so it is with whatever stat you cast spells with.


Two notes:

1) I mentioned Shivering Touch, where you'll get 6d6 dex damage and a probable death. You'd go there long before acid fog or dispel.
2) Everything a cleric persists will be done at the beginning of the day in Bead of Karma time -- also they're cheap enough to have on hand for every combat!


Finally, some scenarios!

Situation 1: As far as I can tell, none of these actually effect saving throws, though some add immunities (so you can't use Hold Person). I don't believe Druids even get those spells anyway. There are three possible things:

1: You're a Battle Cleric, in which case Dispel Magic was already useful and is now better because you can cast it fast. No argument from me here that this is a buff, I just don't think it's enough of one to get overexcited about.
2: You want to cast a spell. Looking down the cleric spell list, Destruction works fine (DC 24, 20% chance of success). Dispel Magic doesn't even enter the picture.
3: Cast a Bead of Karma-powered Blasphemy, and have a friend beat the snot out of the druid while he's dazed. Again, Dispel Magic doesn't even enter the picture.

This situation is impossible to compare because there's no comparing to even be done.

Situation 2:
We'll assume for simplicity I can catch two at most with an AoE spell. Forgive me, but I don't actually know the spell "Conviction" :-(

You'd do targeted dispels only, as area dispels are completely worthless. Stinking Cloud cuts through all the spells except Heroism, Fear does the same and can probably effect three instead of two. For numerical simplicity and because I have no graphing software, I'm going to just use Fear and assume they have a 75% chance of making the save post-buff. (Did not run calculations before pulling this number out of the air.)

Two fears: 43.75% chance of taking each person caught in the fear out of combat.
Dispel (vs heroism) then fear: 30% chance of taking out the dispelled person, less than that for taking out the un-dispelled.

Winner here: Fear (or Stinking Cloud).

Two notes though: even though this kind of depends on what your minions can do, you don't want to do targeted dispels against 8 enemies -- you'll be dead long before you get anywhere against them; you are much better off just firing at them. Liberal usage of Solid Fog helps too. I think you can easily convince yourself of that.

Yet, with an immediate action Dispel, this becomes a lot more interesting tactically, because now you can dispel a guy and do other stuff at the same time -- letting your minions also have a fighting chance. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Dispel buff is a good thing here.

No, it's not. It makes gishes even weaker (and they didn't need to be) and further buffs save or dies, which are already good. It also further buffs a spell that already does its intent, which is frequently useful, absolutely fine into "OMGWTFBBQ" good territory.

[Hyooz]

No, you don't. The old method of counterspelling (blast them in the face with mega damage) still works just fine. In addition, you can now cast an immediate action Dispel to counterspell the old way as well.

You do bring up a good point that this shouldn't be strength-based, though. I shall edit it so it is with whatever stat you cast spells with.


That's... not the old method of counterspelling. I figure you're making a quip about how old counterspelling was so bad people just didn't bother with it and killed them instead, but that kind of misses the point.

Just switching the stat around makes it a little better, but still doesn't really make it worth doing. I still have to roll well (now only a 10 or above if I get to use Int, again assuming he has no feats or items that increase spell DCs) and it still costs me a spell. We're looking at an opportunity cost of a spell, position, and an attack of opportunity (which I may or may not care about, admittedly) for the off chance of dispelling. A caster who isn't a gish doesn't want to be anywhere near the enemy, and a caster who is a gish doesn't have the spells to give up just to say "no."

Immediate action Dispel Magic is superior in every way.

[Surgo]

That's... not the old method of counterspelling. I figure you're making a quip about how old counterspelling was so bad people just didn't bother with it and killed them instead, but that kind of misses the point.
No, actually, I'm not making a quip at all.

Without these variant rules, you could counterspell two ways:

Method 1: The official counterspelling rules, with readied actions.
Method 2: Ready a big blasting spell instead of readying an action to counterspell.

Option #2 gives them a concentration check they can't succeed at (making them lose the spell), as well as piling on an additional effect (more damage).

In addition, I think you are misreading my rules a bit. You do not expend the spell unless you successfully hit.

I'd also like to thank everyone for getting back on topic and talking about the actual counterspelling, as opposed to how they think dispel magic is too good (really, you can just say that it only works that way for the purposes of countering a spell if you actually believe dispel magic is a worthwhile action).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Well, if you're actually counterspelling under the default system, good thing there are other spells, feats, and class abilities out there to make it not only worthwhile but effective.


As for you argument that Dispel Magic (Greater) is made of fail, I would recommend hitting up some of the Test of Spite battles for statistical analysis of why it's damned effective.

[Surgo]

Test of Spite is many things good and bad, but one of them is not an actual campaign session -- most of which is due to the ridiculous number of rules. I'll be happy to examine such an analysis of dispel magic if you can show me one, but I honestly feel it more likely to be misleading than anything else.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Such a statement is not unlike saying that Wizards prep nothing but fireball and other blasty style spells, as such are typically found in a campaign. Obviously, Dispel Magic will not be used in every fight in the same sense that Grease will not see a use in every fight, but in the case of fighting intelligent opponents who either use magic weapons or have buff spells of their own, a targeted Dispel Magic can remove more of them than your typical debuff.

[jiriku]

I'll respond only to one of your rebuttals, to minimize the time we spend off-topic.



Situation 1: As far as I can tell, none of these actually effect saving throws, though some add immunities...

Bite of the werebear and aspect of the earth hunter both change Dexterity and Constitution, impacting saving throws. Most of the other spells are there to demonstrate that there is considerable efficacy to be found in debuffing an enemy: you reduce his offensive, defensive and maneuvering potential.


2: You want to cast a spell. Looking down the cleric spell list, Destruction works fine (DC 24, 20% chance of success).
Point.


3: Cast a Bead of Karma-powered Blasphemy, and have a friend beat the snot out of the druid while he's dazed.
It would be holy word, but I see where you're going with that. This is not such a good point, because you're omitting the standard action required to activate the bead of karma. That's significant because in this case, the cleric in question was dead before his turn came around on round 2, (the druid charge-pounced him and tore him to pieces), so the tactic would have failed.

There's a logical fallacy in your argument. You're considering the value added by dispel when it reduces enemy saves, but disregarding it when it degrades an enemies other defenses, or his offensive or maneuvering capabilities. Yes, destruction-destruction has a 36% chance of scoring a kill in two rounds, while greater dispel-destruction is less. However, that first-round greater dispel is likely to eliminate about 10 buff spells, and a second one would eliminate 5 more. I would argue that a 100% chance of eliminating 40%-60% of the druid's buff's was more valuable than a 20% chance of killing him outright, with an 80% risk of wasting the spell. The druid could have lost his ability to fly, which would have forced him to shift into a (much less powerful) flying wild shape. He could have lost bite of the werebear, girallon's blessing, or aspect of the earth hunter, any of which would have dramatically reduced his offensive capability. He could have lost some of his energy immunities, opening him up to an attack spell from an allied caster, or lost significant AC and hit points, making him vulnerable to allied melee fighters.

Let me put it another way. Casting a targeted dispel on a guy with 19 buffs is like getting a chance to counterspell him 19 times, against spells he cast before you even woke up this morning, and all you invest is a standard action and a single spell slot. This seriously does not suck. Versus anything. In fact, it is the way phat granddaddy of debuffs.

In this particular scenario, on round 1 the party threw some damage-dealing and save-or-die spells at him and failed to kill him. He charge-pounced two adjacent PCs, and with some lucky rolls, killed them both. The remaining characters fled. A timely dispel would have thrown a wrench in his plans, and if dispels were immediate, the players would surely have tossed several at him.

To reiterate, a targeted dispel can cripple a heavily buffed enemy. It's like rolling a dozen or more counterspell attempts with only one standard action and one spell slot invested. Dispel magic as an immediate action for counterspells only sounds good, but you seriously don't want players throwing around targeted dispels as immediate actions.


Noooooow back onto the topic that is surely more near and dear to your heart, which is, countering spells by whacking them with a magic stick. I support anything which provides more cinematic combat, which your option surely will. But what happens if we stress-test it?

Let's try some scenarios using your counterspelling method.
Scenario 1: Party vs. dragon
I have a concern here. Suppose the party wizard casts enlarge person himself and uses a reach weapon (he casts a spell to make himself proficient with it). The wizard is a counterspell build, so naturally he has 16+ Dex and Combat Reflexes. Thus, he can counter at least 4 spells per round. The party advances in close formation with the wizard in the center, pre-buffed with aura of evasion and a buttload of resist energy spells to protect themselves from its breath weapon. The wizzie has 20' reach, so he can ward a hemisphere 60 ft across and 30 ft high.

If the dragon casts, the wizard shuts him down. Dragons generally have lower-level spellcasting than equivalent-CR single-class casters, so the wizzie is assured to be able to auto-dispel him with his highest-level slots. In this situation, the dragon can't target the party with anything. If they stay close to the wizard, he can't even catch many them with AoE effects dropped just outside the wizard's reach. It seems to me that the dragon is locked out of spellcasting unless he self-buffs, in which case, by your rules, the wizzie simply slams him with an immediate-action targeted dispel.

Scenario 2: enemy gish solo monster vs. party
The gish is dispel-focused, so he's enlarged and using a reach weapon (say a spiked chain). He leaps into the middle of combat, mixing it up with the party melee characters. Because he's a solo boss, he's a couple levels higher than they are, and because he's dispel-focused, he dispels as if he's a LOT higher than that. PC casters can't hit him, because he's got more Dex than Bilbo Baggins and with Combat Reflexes can counter more spells per turn than the party can cast. They can't buff or heal the melee fighters either. Basically they can't touch him, and are reduced to summoning (which he can attempt to dispel 1/round as an immediate action) or shooting crossbows at him.

tl;dr Basically, I'm worried that the ability to dispel up to your allowed number of attacks of opportunity, rather than a max of 1/round, makes dispelling too powerful. A good dispeller with considerable reach can completely shut down enemy casters with considerable reliability for a considerable period of time.

[ericgrau]

Dispel magic can remove multiple spells with a single spell. It needs no buffing. Generally counter-spelling is worth it when your opponent is beefier than you are, and thus his action is worth more. But those situations only happen so often. Beefing up counter-spelling would help casters neutralize other casters, which would make casters less effective in general yet still essential as a utility role for the purpose of neutralization. I think the AoO method is a fine way of doing this. The Improved Counterspelling feat as-is provides a way to make it more likely that you'll have the right spell to do this.

[Surgo]

I won't respond to the rebuttal further Jiriku unless you want to take it to PM with me because, well, further off-topic. We can just leave it at "if you feel Dispel Magic is strong enough already, you can make it immediate for counterspell only" -- pretty simple.

Obviously, though, we have to talk about the new scenarios!

Scenario 1: The key thing here is "the wizard is a counterspell build". Because of this, I expect every subsequent sentence in this scenario. Dragons are poor spellcasters, as you already noted. So what we have is a wizard who is a counterspell specialist vs a poor spellcaster -- in this case, I wholeheartedly expect and want the counterspell specialist to lock them down. This is the scenario where such a specialist would shine.

Scenario 2: First, this guy is clearly a counterspell specialist too because he pumped his dex and took Combat Reflexes. That said, I am now worried about the power of Dispel Magic as a counterspell agent. What I'd normally expect is for the gish to lose a bunch of spells counterspelling and then not be able to do that anymore because he isn't a full spellcaster, but in this case he can just take the hit to his lower level spell slots (Dispel Magic). Being able to do that so he doesn't have to hit his higher level slots is a bit worrying.

Is it problematic, though? I'm not sure. I'm pretty close to editing it so you can only counterspell with Dispel Magic as the immediate action, and not with the AoO. But, it does what I want it to do, which is have one spellcaster able to stop a directly targeting enemy spellcaster. It doesn't stop a Wall Of X, and if you're using Tome classes (or other classes that are spellcaster-level power) for your meleer, I think this is just a fight that a fellow spellcaster would be bad at and, say, a fighter or a knight would be good at.

You've given me something to think about, anyway.

[jiriku]

The question in my mind is always "how much power do you get and how much do you pay to get it?"

IME, any caster who isn't in full plate is going to pack a natural Dex of at least 14, more if the caster is a monster with stat bonuses. Onto that it's easy at levels 8+ for a caster to afford an item of +2 or +4 Dex. There's considerable value in improving AC, touch AC, iniative, and Reflex saves, so you're really not even going very far out of your way by getting it. This means that with a 1-feat investment, most casters are likely to have 4+ AoOs available. Seem fair?

For gish characters or caster/brawler monsters (or hell, any outsider with dispel magic as an SLA), to-hit is likely to be solid, again without going too far out of the way. Would it be fair to say that spell save DCs generally aren't higher than 10+caster CR? If so, I'd tentatively say that a gish worth his salt can probably "hit" a spell 80% of the time without investing in extra goodies like Deft Opportunist. Sound reasonable?

Likewise, any gish (and every CoDzilla) will find that investing in reach really pays for itself. It's not a counterspell-specific tactic. It doesn't even cost much: 1 spell for a cleric or wizard, and 1 use of wild shape for a druid (although wildshaped druids don't counter better with reach unless their natural weapons count as magic weapons, which will cost an extra spell). So any caster who's swinging a weapon with serious intent could realistically threaten a 30'-wide space without trying very hard. So far so good?

So, realistically, with a 1-feat investment, a gish character can auto-counter everything in his neighborhood, provided he has higher-level slots to expend or can swing the caster level check for a dispel. This is where it gets dicey. Generally, I'd say that if your opponent expends a standard action and a spell of level x to cast, and you expend an AoO and a spell of level x+1 to counter, that's a net win for you. In combat, standard actions are worth dramatically more than AoOs, and a level x+1 spell is only modestly more valuable than a level x spell. After all, on my turn I may have to hit you with scorching ray instead of fireball, but your action was downgraded from casting spell x to doing nothing.

I'm worried that certain types of casters can be brutally effective counterspellers with little or no investment. OTOH, as ericgrau points out, giving spellcasters the means to easily neutralize one another could give melee A LOT more breathing space in which to shine. Now that lich seriously needs his bodyguards to hold off the PC fighters while he struggles to win a spell-war that might take some time (and many spell slots) to finish. Casters become like air support in a modern war: they really can't effectively help the troops on the ground until they've achieved air superiority over the battlespace.

I find myself really wanting to playtest this to see how it works, but my PCs are ALL casters and having played to levels 13-14, are very comfortable in their roles. I don't think they'd agree to the change in midstream. Perhaps in the next campaign....