No Dimensional Anchor/Lock? How come?

[heavyfuel]

Anyone knows the reason why these are no longer spells? It makes Teleport and Dimension Door pretty much a guaranteed way of escaping any situation, even more now that Dimension Door allows for you to carry one creature along with you. Seriously, what were they thinking?

[hymer]

Anyone knows the reason why these are no longer spells? It makes Teleport and Dimension Door pretty much a guaranteed way of escaping any situation, even more now that Dimension Door allows for you to carry one creature along with you. Seriously, what were they thinking?

Maybe "How many ways do we need to stop teleportation? Isn't the whole teleport vs. anti-teleport too gamey? And it's not like these are iconic spells. Maybe people should just use Counterspell, at least it's a much more versatile option."
But then, I wouldn't know.

[Naanomi]

Hallow and forbiddence: both block teleport; both can be made perminant

[heavyfuel]

Maybe "How many ways do we need to stop teleportation? Isn't the whole teleport vs. anti-teleport too gamey? And it's not like these are iconic spells. Maybe people should just use Counterspell, at least it's a much more versatile option."
But then, I wouldn't know.

Yeah, they weren't iconic, and Counterspell can be used. Except that an enemy with access to Teleport or Dimension Door can probably Counterspell your Counterspell (I don't think there's a rule saying you can't cast a reactive spell while casting a regular spell, though I'm AFB and could be wrong).

If the enemy's also farther than 60ft from you (Dimensional Anchor had a minimum range of 170 ft in 3.5), he will escape with ease. If you're farther than 30ft away from him, he can just walk away to teleport, or maybe use Expeditious Retreat and teleport the next round (if you Counterspell that, he'll just teleport willy-nilly cuz you just spent your reaction)

It's way too easy to get away with either of these spells


Hallow and forbiddence: both block teleport; both can be made perminant

Yeah, they can both work sort of like Dimensional Lock, except for a much greater casting time, expensive material component (especially Hallow, since it's consumed) and being Cleric only.

Still no way of preventing an enemy from Teleporting away to safety.

[Fwiffo86]

Maybe someone realized Dimensional Lock prevented Banishment.

[Naanomi]

Oh sorry I didn't realize you meant combat mobility, my mistake.

Anti magic field stops teleport
Mind control spells can prevent teleport; command being the first level version and working up the suggestion/dominate chain
D-door has verbal componants; so silence works
Spells that incapacitate totally; like sleep or flesh to stone, obviously work as well

[Person_Man]

My understanding is that they didn't include it because Counterspell exists and can easily thwart any spell, and they wanted to avoid the gamey requirement that specific spells needed specific counters. Its unlikely that a PC would just normally choose to memorize Dimensional Anchor, and being forced to take up a slot on the off chance you might come across an enemy that needs it is un-fun and duplicative of Counterspell.

[heavyfuel]

Maybe someone realized Dimensional Lock prevented Banishment.

Hmmm. Never thought about using it that way. My 3.5 players are in for a surprise next session :smallamused:


Oh sorry I didn't realize you meant combat mobility, my mistake.

Anti magic field stops teleport
Mind control spells can prevent teleport; command being the first level version and working up the suggestion/dominate chain
D-door has verbal componants; so silence works
Spells that incapacitate totally; like sleep or flesh to stone, obviously work as well

AMF is level 6th and requires being close to the target;
Mind controll works, if they fail their save, or isn't immune to charms;
Silence can be walked away from


My understanding is that they didn't include it because Counterspell exists and can easily thwart any spell, and they wanted to avoid the gamey requirement that specific spells needed specific counters. Its unlikely that a PC would just normally choose to memorize Dimensional Anchor, and being forced to take up a slot on the off chance you might come across an enemy that needs it is un-fun and duplicative of Counterspell.

It probably wasn't clear in my previous post, but the main issue with Counterspell is that it has a laughable 60ft range. A Dimensional Anchor spell would probably have at least double that, and not require an ability check, but an attack. It would also last at least a whole minute, unlike Counterspell

[hymer]

Except that an enemy with access to Teleport or Dimension Door can probably Counterspell your Counterspell (I don't think there's a rule saying you can't cast a reactive spell while casting a regular spell, though I'm AFB and could be wrong).

While this may well be true, I don't think the developers thought that it would be. :smallsmile:


If the enemy's also farther than 60ft from you (Dimensional Anchor had a minimum range of 170 ft in 3.5), he will escape with ease. If you're farther than 30ft away from him, he can just walk away to teleport, or maybe use Expeditious Retreat and teleport the next round (if you Counterspell that, he'll just teleport willy-nilly cuz you just spent your reaction)

It's way too easy to get away with either of these spells

There are a lot of assumptions here. If you can run away like that, the need to use teleportation magic to escape is a lot less pressing. Assuming someone has Expeditious Retreat is hardly a given.
I haven't seen an emergency teleport in 5th edition yet, but from 3.5 games, I think they're pretty harrowing even when the enemy hasn't laid down some block. And bringing along one friend is usually not enough until desperation is very high.
I'm not sure this will be an actual problem.

[Easy_Lee]

I'd say just wait and see if it becomes a problem. A lot of the theoretical munchkining we talk about around here never happens in a typical game. If it gets abused too much, maybe a Homebrew spell gets used or a surprise hallow was in place.

[Icewraith]

It's a gift to DMs and players alike. More so to DMs.

In 3.5 it got to the point that any major villain I wanted to last more than one session needed to have some kind of artifact or magic item or special immunity specifically enabling them to escape and bypass or counterspell dimensional anchors/locks.

However, it also means that the spells can't be used to ambush the PCs and ensure a TPK. There are also still ways to prevent an opponent from getting their teleport spell off, they just require more tactics and planning than "teleport in, cast dimensional lock, and proceed to kill everything as normal".

[dukeofwolfsgate]

"teleport in, cast dimensional lock, and proceed to kill everything as normal".

My 3.5 gaming group's favorite tactic against every major villain I ever threw at them.:smallsigh:

They hated recurring villains with a passion.:smallamused:

[Chronos]

Forcecage also has a dimensional lock effect now. Which is actually the only thing it has over the lower-level and cheaper Wall of Force, which can now also completely enclose a target.

[rhouck]

Yeah, they weren't iconic, and Counterspell can be used. Except that an enemy with access to Teleport or Dimension Door can probably Counterspell your Counterspell (I don't think there's a rule saying you can't cast a reactive spell while casting a regular spell, though I'm AFB and could be wrong).

FYI: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/02/04/counterspell-vs-counterspell/


Christopher Perkins @ChrisPerkinsDnD
Follow
“@Aramalian: Wizard casts spell. Sorcerer interrupts w/Counterspell. W has reaction avail. Can W counter S's Counterspell?”

Rules say no.

I assume it is because, as you guessed, the language of counterspell is "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." Since the spell is being cast while the other spell is "in the process", you could not counterspell the counterspell because you'd still be casting the first spell. Another player could, however, counterspell the counterspell (I assume).

[heavyfuel]

Forcecage also has a dimensional lock effect now. Which is actually the only thing it has over the lower-level and cheaper Wall of Force, which can now also completely enclose a target.

I haven't noticed that about either spells. Still, a 7th level spell slot available to Bard/Wiz/Sorc only...


FYI: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/02/04/counterspell-vs-counterspell/

I assume it is because, as you guessed, the language of counterspell is "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." Since the spell is being cast while the other spell is "in the process", you could not counterspell the counterspell because you'd still be casting the first spell. Another player could, however, counterspell the counterspell (I assume).

Thanks for the link, but still, Sage advice is still just that. Advice.

Until WotC man up and say that sage rulling is RAW, he has as much credibility as any other DM

[Easy_Lee]

Until WotC man up and say that sage rulling is RAW, he has as much credibility as any other DM

I agree with this. It's one of those frustrating things about 5e that it requires so many rulings. I'm about ready to compile a list of mine and just stick them on the outer wall of my DM screen, just to clear any confusion.

For me personally, I think counterspelling a counterspell is perfectly valid. If the player is casting at the same time as they counter the counter, I'd chalk it up to "some really cool, dynamic casting." And counterspell ought to work fine on any spell.

The range is tricky, though in the case of a player trying to move just outside a range and teleport, I'd probably rule on the side of realism in that case and just say "the baddie is keeping pace with you", assuming movement speeds were equivocable.

[pwykersotz]

Thanks for the link, but still, Sage advice is still just that. Advice.

Until WotC man up and say that sage rulling is RAW, he has as much credibility as any other DM

Which is all the credibility, as each individual DM is master of their table. The difference with Sage Advice is that it comes from those who worked on development who presumably have a better grasp of RAI. Which is a lot more useful for many of us than RAW since RAW is so easily twisted for power-gaming.

And yeah, the Forcecage restriction is nice, even though it allows a save.

[toapat]

For me personally, I think counterspelling a counterspell is perfectly valid. If the player is casting at the same time as they counter the counter, I'd chalk it up to "some really cool, dynamic casting." And counterspell ought to work fine on any spell.

id allow some serious MTG level counter-spell munitions fire in spellcasting just to see how rediculous the cascade goes to get one spell off. id also force teleports to increase inaccuracy for each one if it succeeds by simple virtue of losing focus on the target destination, so you pop at first 20 feet away, or 20 planes away

[rhouck]

For me personally, I think counterspelling a counterspell is perfectly valid. If the player is casting at the same time as they counter the counter, I'd chalk it up to "some really cool, dynamic casting." And counterspell ought to work fine on any spell.

How do you describe that mechanically? Since you are interrupting a spell mid casting, that means you would be casting two spells at the same time. So your wizard is halfway through casting Teleport, the next wizard casts Counterspell to interrupt, and your wizard does what exactly? Pauses Teleport and then resumes? Or does Teleport finish casting, then the first Counterspell, followed by the second? Kind of a loose definition of "process" but I suppose one could argue that the spell "process" is not complete until the S/V/M components are done and then the spell itself actually has taken effect.

I have no probably allowing it because it seems cool, just not sure how to justify it RAW.

[Naanomi]

I'd play it more like reinforcing the original spell

[heavyfuel]

How do you describe that mechanically? Since you are interrupting a spell mid casting, that means you would be casting two spells at the same time. So your wizard is halfway through casting Teleport, the next wizard casts Counterspell to interrupt, and your wizard does what exactly? Pauses Teleport and then resumes? Or does Teleport finish casting, then the first Counterspell, followed by the second? Kind of a loose definition of "process" but I suppose one could argue that the spell "process" is not complete until the S/V/M components are done and then the spell itself actually has taken effect.

I have no probably allowing it because it seems cool, just not sure how to justify it RAW.

One doesn't have to justify it mechanically. Mechanically, you have your reaction that can be used at any time you want. Justifying the fluff (which is what I think you meant) is as simple as

A: I'm casting a spell!
B: No you're not! Ha! Counterspell!!!
A: Shut up... Counterspell.

Which is pretty staple in fantasy. The all powerful big bad is concentrating to cast spell or hatever, the heroes try to interrupt him, and he just shoves them off with a though and go back to concentrating on whatever he was doing before.

[Easy_Lee]

How do you describe that mechanically? Since you are interrupting a spell mid casting, that means you would be casting two spells at the same time. So your wizard is halfway through casting Teleport, the next wizard casts Counterspell to interrupt, and your wizard does what exactly? Pauses Teleport and then resumes? Or does Teleport finish casting, then the first Counterspell, followed by the second? Kind of a loose definition of "process" but I suppose one could argue that the spell "process" is not complete until the S/V/M components are done and then the spell itself actually has taken effect.

I have no probably allowing it because it seems cool, just not sure how to justify it RAW.

Well, back when I played EQ, bards could "twist" several songs together. Essentially, you stopped playing one song, started the next, then stopped and started the next, then stopped and went back to the first song, maintaining the buffs of all three (or four or sometimes five). I'd think of it like that. The wizard is casting one spell, making the big gestures and saying the words just so. Then he has to counterspell. So it sounds like a jumbled mess, but the wizard just did both at the same time. Remember you only need one hand for somatic components, so I imagine he used one hand for each spell and mixed the words together.

It would require intense practice, extreme mental fortitude, and would likely be impossible in real life. But this is fantasy, and I want some dynamic spellcasting.

[Chronos]

It would require intense practice, extreme mental fortitude, and would likely be impossible in real life.
Unlike everything else about spellcasting.

[toapat]

Well, back when I played EQ, bards could "twist" several songs together. Essentially, you stopped playing one song, started the next, then stopped and started the next, then stopped and went back to the first song, maintaining the buffs of all three (or four or sometimes five). I'd think of it like that. The wizard is casting one spell, making the big gestures and saying the words just so. Then he has to counterspell. So it sounds like a jumbled mess, but the wizard just did both at the same time. Remember you only need one hand for somatic components, so I imagine he used one hand for each spell and mixed the words together.

It would require intense practice, extreme mental fortitude, and would likely be impossible in real life. But this is fantasy, and I want some dynamic spellcasting.

The bards in EQ were not playing songs on a normal instrument, they were using a miniature portable turntable in that case and DJing. Besides what you are describing sounds more like a seal twisting paladin.

[heavyfuel]

Which is all the credibility, as each individual DM is master of their table. The difference with Sage Advice is that it comes from those who worked on development who presumably have a better grasp of RAI. Which is a lot more useful for many of us than RAW since RAW is so easily twisted for power-gaming.

And yeah, the Forcecage restriction is nice, even though it allows a save.

Sorry man, I've missed your post before.

Really, call me a cynic if you like, but the designers have a history of not knowing squat about their own fricking game. So much, that the folks at the 3.5 forums were able to add up five (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214988-quot-Wait-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection) and (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267923-quot-Wait-again-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection) a (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?283778-Dysfunctional-Rules-III-100-Rules-Legal-110-Silly) half (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?304817-Dysfunctional-Rules-IV-It-s-like-a-sandwich-made-of-RAW-failure!) whole (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333789-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-V-Dysfunctions-All-the-Way-Down) threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372964-Dysfunctional-Rules-VI-Magic-Circle-Against-Errata) (plus the bonus one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380342-Rules-That-Don-t-Make-Sense)) of things that the developers simply didn't think through.

Not to mention, sage rulings that were downright stupid, and both anti RAW and RAI, even if they weren't (usually) rulled by the developers.

So far, 5e doesn't appear to be as bad, but hey, we still have our own personal mini-thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370459-What-s-Wrong-NOW-%97The-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-for-5e) (that's been archived already) of stupid things the designers have written!

Really, either WotC makes them an official source, and takes some sort of responsibility for what they say (5eSRD, complete with FAQs and Sage rules sections like the PFSRD, anyone?), or I'll stick to my rullings until another is proven to be better.

[Icewraith]

Can you actually use your reaction on your turn? AFB.

[heavyfuel]

Can you actually use your reaction on your turn? AFB.

Yes, you can (PHB p.190)


A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s.

[pwykersotz]

Sorry man, I've missed your post before.

Really, call me a cynic if you like, but the designers have a history of not knowing squat about their own fricking game. So much, that the folks at the 3.5 forums were able to add up five (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214988-quot-Wait-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection) and (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267923-quot-Wait-again-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection) a (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?283778-Dysfunctional-Rules-III-100-Rules-Legal-110-Silly) half (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?304817-Dysfunctional-Rules-IV-It-s-like-a-sandwich-made-of-RAW-failure!) whole (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333789-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-V-Dysfunctions-All-the-Way-Down) threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372964-Dysfunctional-Rules-VI-Magic-Circle-Against-Errata) (plus the bonus one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380342-Rules-That-Don-t-Make-Sense)) of things that the developers simply didn't think through.

Not to mention, sage rulings that were downright stupid, and both anti RAW and RAI, even if they weren't (usually) rulled by the developers.

So far, 5e doesn't appear to be as bad, but hey, we still have our own personal mini-thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370459-What-s-Wrong-NOW-%97The-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-for-5e) (that's been archived already) of stupid things the designers have written!

Really, either WotC makes them an official source, and takes some sort of responsibility for what they say (5eSRD, complete with FAQs and Sage rules sections like the PFSRD, anyone?), or I'll stick to my rullings until another is proven to be better.

No prob. :smallsmile:

And yeah, I agree. Heck, I already disagree with a few of the official rulings myself and am running things differently. As far as 'understanding their own game', I think that's where the split in opinion comes in. The dysfunctional rules happen far more regarding RAW than RAI, most of the time you can see what was meant if you take a step back. I think the problem is on our end as readers more often than not, inserting biases and paradigms from all sorts of places and trying to twist the words. I do not hold myself exempt from this.

For me, I don't see the point in them making the sage advice official errata, given their previous information on how they view the game. They are encouraging us to tinker with it and to interpret it how we desire. So the difference between advice and rules is only what DM's who don't care one way or the other will use. People with strong opinions will just over-write the rules how they want anyway.

[TheOOB]

Reading the rules, I can't find anything that would make it so you can't use counterspell to counter a counterspell used against you. You can use your reaction on your turn, and no rules seems to prohibit it. I probably wouldn't allow it as a house rule, (though I'd allow you to counterspell a counterspell targetting someone elses spell), because I don't like the idea of you casting a spell while casting a spell(i also think it makes it too hard to actually counteract more powerful mages).

Sage Advice is at best word of god, and I wish he went into more detail on his rulings.

[heavyfuel]

Just realized another utility for a Dimensional Anchor spell, which is blockin even non-magical teleports such as the Monk's Shadow Step

[Yagyujubei]

so this thread is basically

-OP: teleport and dimension door are guaranteed means of escape since these two spells aren't in the game any more
-responses: But look, you can use all these other spells to stop someone from teleporting
-OP: NO YOU CANT

seriously, how can you just ignore all the other spells that have been mentioned. your main retort is that the ranges are alot smaller, but how in the hell are the teleporting wizards getting so far away when their speed isn't any higher than anyone else in the combat? 60/90 feet is more than enough range to shut down any caster. If you let them get that far away they deserve to escape. There are dozens of way to shut down enemy casters, why are you so desperately in need of a derpy easy button? and since you need it so bad just put it in the spell list of 5e?

also just as a side note monks hardcounter the crap out of this even without mage slayer

[heavyfuel]

so this thread is basically

-OP: teleport and dimension door are guaranteed means of escape since these two spells aren't in the game any more
-responses: But look, you can use all these other spells to stop someone from teleporting
-OP: NO YOU CANT

seriously, how can you just ignore all the other spells that have been mentioned. your main retort is that the ranges are alot smaller, but how in the hell are the teleporting wizards getting so far away when their speed isn't any higher than anyone else in the combat? 60/90 feet is more than enough range to shut down any caster. If you let them get that far away they deserve to escape. There are dozens of way to shut down enemy casters, why are you so desperately in need of a derpy easy button? and since you need it so bad just put it in the spell list of 5e?

also just as a side note monks hardcounter the crap out of this even without mage slayer

This is not even close to being truth. All I did was point out that all of the solutions to substitute Dimensional Anchor are, at least in way, flawed, and Dimensional Anchor would be a more sure-fire way to prevent teleportation, magical or otherwise. Though the existance of spells that can function like Dimensional Lock has been covered, even if they are Cleric only.

While 90ft is decent, it's pretty easy to get 60ft away from somebody, considering that you're a bit far away from your melee party and that the opposing Wizard with Counterspell probably is a bit far away from his melee party. So if you're already 35ft away, all it takes is one movement of 30ft after you realise you won't win to escape.

[Once a Fool]

Reading the rules, I can't find anything that would make it so you can't use counterspell to counter a counterspell used against you. You can use your reaction on your turn, and no rules seems to prohibit it. I probably wouldn't allow it as a house rule, (though I'd allow you to counterspell a counterspell targetting someone elses spell), because I don't like the idea of you casting a spell while casting a spell(i also think it makes it too hard to actually counteract more powerful mages).

Sage Advice is at best word of god, and I wish he went into more detail on his rulings.

Counterspell is a spell in 5e. Extrapolating intent from the Bonus Action spell rules, you cannot cast two spells in a single turn. Ever. (Twinning a spell is different.)

Therefore, you cannot counter a counterspell against a spell you are casting. Some clarification in the reaction rules would be nice, however, since, technically, by RAW, reaction spells can be cast on the same turn as you cast another spell.

[Easy_Lee]

technically, by RAW, reaction spells can be cast on the same turn as you cast another spell.

I think you meant "round" in place of "turn", but it's right there in your own post. Casters who have counterspell can counter other casters' attempts to teleport, providing they have a high-enough spell slot available and yadda yadda.

The whole "you can't cast two spells in one turn unless one of them is a cantrip" thing is a silly rule, anyway.

[heavyfuel]

Counterspell is a spell in 5e. Extrapolating intent from the Bonus Action spell rules, you cannot cast two spells in a single turn. Ever. (Twinning a spell is different.)

Therefore, you cannot counter a counterspell against a spell you are casting. Some clarification in the reaction rules would be nice, however, since, technically, by RAW, reaction spells can be cast on the same turn as you cast another spell.

By this token, any caster that didn't spent his last turn casting a cantrip can't also cast Counterspell, or Shield, or Hellish Rebuke, making the last two spells useless, since +5 AC or 2d10 dex save half fire damage will hadly ever be as usefull a 1 Action 1st level spell.


The whole "you can't cast two spells in one turn unless one of them is a cantrip" thing is a silly rule, anyway.

It's there mostly to stop Quicken Spell from being so powerful like it was in 3.5. I dislike it somewhat, but understand why they made it a rule.

[JFahy]

This is not even close to being truth. All I did was point out that all of the solutions to substitute Dimensional Anchor are, at least in way, flawed, and Dimensional Anchor would be a more sure-fire way to prevent teleportation, magical or otherwise.

I don't see the flaws as a bad thing. As a character you'd want abilities
with 100% reliability, but from the perspective of a storyteller uncertainty
is better. It makes you react and scramble. It ensures that no victory is
ever completely in the bag, and no loss is ever totally hopeless.

If anything, I'd say smart game designers are more likely to give us 'flawed'
spells, and less-good game designers are more likely to write perfectly
reliable spells.

[Once a Fool]

I think you meant "round" in place of "turn", but it's right there in your own post. Casters who have counterspell can counter other casters' attempts to teleport, providing they have a high-enough spell slot available and yadda yadda.

No, I meant "turn." The only RAW preventing the casting of two spells on the same turn is for bonus action spells. Rules for reaction spells do not spell this out and, since reactions can be taken on your own turn, this means that you could (for example) cast a spell that triggers an opportunity attack from someone with Mage Slayer AND cast shield in response to the OA--if the rules are allowing you to cast the reaction spell in the middle of casting the original. I don't personally think that's intended, but who cares whether I do or not?


The whole "you can't cast two spells in one turn unless one of them is a cantrip" thing is a silly rule, anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. I haven't explored all of the possible broken combinations that could result.


By this token, any caster that didn't spent his last turn casting a cantrip can't also cast Counterspell, or Shield, or Hellish Rebuke, making the last two spells useless, since +5 AC or 2d10 dex save half fire damage will hadly ever be as usefull a 1 Action 1st level spell.

No, no. I said, "turn," not, "round."

[heavyfuel]

No, no. I said, "turn," not, "round."

Oh. ok... my mistake