ambartanen
2014-09-08, 06:04 AM
So this discussion came up in another thread but I think it might deserve separate discussion. The basic question is this: can you counterspell a counterspell? By RAW nothing is preventing you and counterspell only has a somatic component so the suggestions that you are already using your hands or focus doesn't quite fly because you don't need them to counterspell. I am not really interested in convincing people that one way is better than the other though; I just want to point out that choosing one or the other results in a very different dynamic in magic duels.
If you cannot counterspell counterspells, then in a duel between equally powerful casters it is almost always the right choice to counterspell a powerful spell. Both sides lose the same amount of resources and you prevent the opposition from gaining a major advantage. The only case where this isn't the correct move is when the enemy is casting a spell that you don't find particularly threatening- perhaps teleporting away when you don't want to continue the fight or using an elemental attack you are immune to.
So generally speaking if both casters start out with the same casting resources, any spell of level three or above will get counterspelled and the fight effectively goes nowhere. Now that means that, since both sides will eventually run out of level 3+ spell slots anyway without achieving anything, you are much better off using cantrips and first or second level spells for you offensive. They require more resources to counter than they require to cast so you get an advantage if they are countered or deal damage. You are probably best off using a weapon since that cannot be countered at all.
If you can counterspell counterspells, then it is really important who has the initiative. Initially that is the one who wins the initiative roll but it can be switched in one of two ways- either the person with the initiative decides not to cast any spells on their turn or the person who doesn't have the initiative misses a counterspell (essentially taking the negative consequences as the cost of taking initiative). Whoever has the initiative determines whether to shut down spellcasting almost entirely (by not countering counterspells and only using strong spells) or to allow spellcasting normally (by countering counterspells you expend double resources but it looks like no counterspelling is happening to bystanders). In both cases, you are forced to use powerful spells or lose the initiative- throwing a cantrip or first level magic missile will let the other side drive the spellcasting in the encounter.
So, really, the first way means spellcasters effectively negate each other in most fights and leaves it mostly up to their allies to determine who wins the fight. While their general behavior is predetermined by the ruling, spellcasters still get to toss around low powered spells so they are clearly contributing.
The second way means spellcasters can choose whether to completely negate each other or both blast at maximum capacity. The first choice makes it seem like they are just standing there doing nothing while the second has them hitting as hard as they possibly can. Either way a few rounds into the fight both casters are totally spent. The spellcasters do get a meaningful choice for their behavior though.
Personally, I like the second option better because it involves more tactical thinking. I imagine people who think casters are too versatile/powerful might consider the first option as one of many ways to balance their effect on a fight.
If you cannot counterspell counterspells, then in a duel between equally powerful casters it is almost always the right choice to counterspell a powerful spell. Both sides lose the same amount of resources and you prevent the opposition from gaining a major advantage. The only case where this isn't the correct move is when the enemy is casting a spell that you don't find particularly threatening- perhaps teleporting away when you don't want to continue the fight or using an elemental attack you are immune to.
So generally speaking if both casters start out with the same casting resources, any spell of level three or above will get counterspelled and the fight effectively goes nowhere. Now that means that, since both sides will eventually run out of level 3+ spell slots anyway without achieving anything, you are much better off using cantrips and first or second level spells for you offensive. They require more resources to counter than they require to cast so you get an advantage if they are countered or deal damage. You are probably best off using a weapon since that cannot be countered at all.
If you can counterspell counterspells, then it is really important who has the initiative. Initially that is the one who wins the initiative roll but it can be switched in one of two ways- either the person with the initiative decides not to cast any spells on their turn or the person who doesn't have the initiative misses a counterspell (essentially taking the negative consequences as the cost of taking initiative). Whoever has the initiative determines whether to shut down spellcasting almost entirely (by not countering counterspells and only using strong spells) or to allow spellcasting normally (by countering counterspells you expend double resources but it looks like no counterspelling is happening to bystanders). In both cases, you are forced to use powerful spells or lose the initiative- throwing a cantrip or first level magic missile will let the other side drive the spellcasting in the encounter.
So, really, the first way means spellcasters effectively negate each other in most fights and leaves it mostly up to their allies to determine who wins the fight. While their general behavior is predetermined by the ruling, spellcasters still get to toss around low powered spells so they are clearly contributing.
The second way means spellcasters can choose whether to completely negate each other or both blast at maximum capacity. The first choice makes it seem like they are just standing there doing nothing while the second has them hitting as hard as they possibly can. Either way a few rounds into the fight both casters are totally spent. The spellcasters do get a meaningful choice for their behavior though.
Personally, I like the second option better because it involves more tactical thinking. I imagine people who think casters are too versatile/powerful might consider the first option as one of many ways to balance their effect on a fight.