Is there a good alternate system or homebrew for counterspelling?

[Mendicant]

Just about what it says in the title. As is counterspelling isn't all that great--you'd almost always be better off using your action to cast rather than using it up to negate your opponent's spell. If I've ever seen someone counterspell during an encounter, I can't remember it.

Are there good builds that make this a worthwhile strategy I'm unaware of?

Has anyone ever put together some kind of alternate ruleset for counterspelling?

[LokeyITP]

It depends on what you want to fix about the game. Short answer is I'll go with yes :) Blocking line of effect will do other things besides negating lots of spell casting, it's hard to compete with the general best strategy.

Things to consider: Do you allow SLAs to be countered? Do you want the full bore reactive counterspelling of Races of Faerun? Since it's something all casters have, do you really want it to be stronger (because spell casters are already pretty good compared to other classes and all)?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Divine Defiance (Fiendish Codex 2) is the best way I've seen, since it costs Turn Undead attempts instead of actions. It may not even require you to expend spells, though the wording is a bit unclear.

[Mendicant]

It depends on what you want to fix about the game. Short answer is I'll go with yes :) Blocking line of effect will do other things besides negating lots of spell casting, it's hard to compete with the general best strategy.

Things to consider: Do you allow SLAs to be countered? Do you want the full bore reactive counterspelling of Races of Faerun? Since it's something all casters have, do you really want it to be stronger (because spell casters are already pretty good compared to other classes and all)?

I'm not sure what I want, honestly. I'd like counterspelling to be a more interesting choice, because I like the fluff surrounding it, but how I'd get there I don't know. I don't think I want SLA's to be countered because it becomes a straight buff for casters, but counterspelling normal spells would cut both ways and even out.

I'll take a look at RoF and Divine Defiance.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Divine Defiance: "You can spend one of your turn or rebuke undead attempts as an immediate action to counter a spell or spell-like effect."

Seems like it'd work against SLAs too. By RAW, you must have a spell prepared that can counter the spell you're trying to stop, but you don't expend it. RAI is probably that you expend a spell, allowing spontaneous casters to use the feat, too, and mirroring regular counterspelling.

[Mendicant]

It still doesn't seem like a great use of an action. Action-denial is best, tactically, as a rider effect on a different action that moves the encounter towards its conclusion. For instance, a blow that deals damage and also stuns is good. A blow that only stuns is kind of meh unless the stunned target has a lot of attacks.

With DD, you're using a less-valuable, situational resource--turning attempts--to negate an opponent's more valuable resource--spellcasting, so there is an upside. It just probably isn't making that big of a difference unless you're hitting a lot of encounters that day.

[Vrakk]

I used a homebrew system in my games for counters.

I ruled that casters can counterspell - similar to a fighter parrying. The player had to have a held action to counter. They would have to identify the spell (thru spellcraft) They could then attempt to "burn" a saved spell of the same level or higher and have a caster level roll off with the other caster. Higher level spells added 2 per higher spell level on the caster level check. If you met or beat the roll then the counterspell succeeded. If you beat the other caster by 4 or more than that caster was dazed for 1d4 rounds. If you won by 8 or more then the caster was stunned for 1d4 rounds.

My players seemed to enjoy it as if they succeeded with a high margin then the other caster would be at a big disadvantage. It also gave them thought to using a much higher level spell slot to try an take out the other caster.

[Jormengand]

Are there good builds that make this a worthwhile strategy I'm unaware of?

Heighten Spell, Improved Counterspell, Easy Metamagic and Practical Metamagic allow you to counterspell with a spell of the same school that is one level lower than the one you're trying to counter.

[Eldaran]

It still doesn't seem like a great use of an action. Action-denial is best, tactically, as a rider effect on a different action that moves the encounter towards its conclusion. For instance, a blow that deals damage and also stuns is good. A blow that only stuns is kind of meh unless the stunned target has a lot of attacks.

With DD, you're using a less-valuable, situational resource--turning attempts--to negate an opponent's more valuable resource--spellcasting, so there is an upside. It just probably isn't making that big of a difference unless you're hitting a lot of encounters that day.

Really? I think it's huge. If there was a feat that said "spend a turn attempt as an immediate action, nauseate an opponent for one round no save" wouldn't that be amazing? Because that's sort of what you're doing, trading an immediate action for their standard action, and enemy spellcasters are usually the biggest threat. Not to mention since you can identify the spell first, you can save your immediate for a particularly dangerous spell.

[Pluto!]

Divine Defiance + Church Inquisitor is great.

You trade a Swift Action (which most characters - especially Clerics - can't put to great use) to negate an opponent's valuable standard action. That's how the action economy can be dominated.

[Miss Disaster]

A number of groups I'm familiar with have done spell research to create customized versions of Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic as Immediate Action casting spells. In order to keep their spell level down in the reasonable zone, both spells had to be stripped down considerably to just be usable as Counterspells - and not their other functions. Still, a valuable homebrew spell in the right situations and/or campaigns. Every GM will adjudicate the costs, math and syntax of homebrew spells differently. Hence, the reason I don't provide you with stats.

[Mendicant]

If there was a feat that said "spend a turn attempt as an immediate action, nauseate an opponent for one round no save" wouldn't that be amazing?

Oh shoot, somehow missed the immediate action part of that. Yeah, that's a really good feat.

[Psyren]

It still doesn't seem like a great use of an action. Action-denial is best, tactically, as a rider effect on a different action that moves the encounter towards its conclusion. For instance, a blow that deals damage and also stuns is good. A blow that only stuns is kind of meh unless the stunned target has a lot of attacks.

That's the case if you're alone - but how often are you alone in D&D?

While you're denying that caster his actions, the fighter is pounding them into paste, the rogue is julienning them or the ranger is pincushioning them. Teamwork.

[Mendicant]

Sure, but if you could've ended the encounter a round or two earlier by just casting a spell, it works out to be much the same thing. In practice it's usually worse, since a spell in that circumstance would likely have effected multiple opponents or disabled the enemy for more than one round.

[Psyren]

Sure, but if you could've ended the encounter a round or two earlier by just casting a spell, it works out to be much the same thing. In practice it's usually worse, since a spell in that circumstance would likely have effected multiple opponents or disabled the enemy for more than one round.

And yet, enemies have defenses like AC, saving throws and SR - making your if a big if against a savvy foe. Not to mention that letting him get that spell off can be far worse for you and your allies.

My point is that counterspelling is a tool - and like all tools in this game, it should be evaluated based on the task at hand, not thrown out the window with nary a thought.

[Miss Disaster]

I agree with Psyren. With a minimal amount of resource investment, you can build anywhere from an above-average to a very-good counterspeller. And since the resource investment is minimal, counterspelling now becomes a tool in your vast toolbox for use against very specific threats in a given scenario or campaign. Those specific threats are usually going to have Tier 1 or Tier 2 casting classes in their builds - meaning you better have strong answers to these enemy threats that are extreme priority threats to kill PCs or even worse, TPKs.

Yes, counterspelling tactics first need to considered in the vein of how effective will you be able to use this tactic given your party composite, party role, enemy composite and most importantly ... contextual action-economy usage. Even if counterspelling cannot be ideally used in a reactive, immediate action role, there will be structured optimized builds and scenarios where standard action counterspelling can still be used successfully against top-tier killer enemy spellcasters. We've all seen combats where even our highly CharOp'ed, Min-Maxed party has been brutally beaten by spellcasters who took down 2 or more party members with one spell in mid-combat. Even after the party's primary spellcasters started things off with their own high-potency offensive spell that unfortunately, didn't land or hit a BBEG who had resistance/immunity to the spell. Counterspelling can be very effective for situations like this - again, with minimal investment and with improbably counter-tactics available to the BBEG.

[Flickerdart]

Battlemagic Perception can be useful too - you can end the spell as a free action to immediately attempt to counter a spell. It's only a 3rd level spell, so it can be quickened easily if you want to renew it in the next round (making it much like an immediate action but more flexible). It also alerts you whenever a spell is cast within 100 feet of you no matter what, and makes it easier to identify what spell it is.