Yet another question about counterspell

[Melcar]

I was thinking about something that I needed some insights on.

If two spell casters are facing off, and mage A is readying an action to counterspell mage B and mage B is casting a quickened or otherwise swift action spell, is mage A able to counterspell that?

The reason for my asking is, because swift action spells does not provoke an AoO, thus being to "quick" to react on.

I know that it says that meta-magic feats do nothing against counterspell, which makes sense when it’s a empowered fireball, but if the casting time s determinant for the counterspell ability to begin with, surely this would have an effect on Counterspelling.

Further question. What if Mage B is casting a still, silent, material eschewed, invisible spell, would Mage A (without ring of spell battle, battle magic perception, spell casters bane or detect magic) even know that Mage B was activating/casting any spell at all?

[sleepyphoenixx]

For your first question, there's nothing that says a quickened spell is any different to a normal spell when counterspelling, so it works as normal. Attacks of Opportunity have nothing to do with counterspelling.
Though counterspelling a quickened spell means you can no longer counterspell if the caster then follows with a non-quickened spell, but that's just action economy.

For the second, no. To counterspell you need to identify the spell with spellcraft, and the skill description states "Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry."

[Necroticplague]

I was thinking about something that I needed some insights on.

If two spell casters are facing off, and mage A is readying an action to counterspell mage B and mage B is casting a quickened or otherwise swift action spell, is mage A able to counterspell that?

The reason for my asking is, because swift action spells does not provoke an AoO, thus being to "quick" to react on.
Yes. The condition (casting a spell) has occured, so the reaction (counterspelling) also occurs. Remember that counterspelling is a type of readied action.


I know that it says that meta-magic feats do nothing against counterspell, which makes sense when it’s a empowered fireball, but if the casting time s determinant for the counterspell ability to begin with, surely this would have an effect on Counterspelling.

I'm not seeing anywhere where the casting time determines whether you can counterspell something, so i see no reason to diverge from the rules here (especially given how counterspelling is already a pathetic tactic).



Further question. What if Mage B is casting a still, silent, material eschewed, invisible spell, would Mage A (without ring of spell battle, battle magic perception, spell casters bane or detect magic) even know that Mage B was activating/casting any spell at all?
Yes. According to Counterspell, if they cast any spell at all, you can make a spellcraft check to identify it, regardless of the components it has.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Looks like the second question is a lot more complicated than it seems at first glance. So i did research.

According to Tome & Blood (p. 19), every missing component increases the spellcraft DC by 2. So a stilled, silent, eschewed spell would still be identifiable, just at +6 to the spellcraft DC. It also notes that a still, silent spell can still be identified because "there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires", as long as you can see and hear them.

According to Song & Silence, in the description of the Disguise Spell feat
Like a silent, stilled spell, a disguised spell can't be identified through a Spellcraft check. That feat was revamped in Complete Adventurer, but the new version doesn't contradict the relevant statement.

So we have two conflicting outcomes, both from 3.0 sources. I haven't been able to find anything newer to confirm or contradict either statement.

Then there's this quote from the Rules Compendium (p.36)

You can use dispel magic to counterspell, and you don't need to identify the spell the other spellcaster is casting.

That's all i was able to find. The only information that's contradicting is the ability to identify a spell without components with spellcraft, but that doesn't mean your enemy doesn't know you're casting (there's the Disguise Spell feat (CAdv), the Sleight of Hand skill (RoS) and the Conceal Spellcasting and False Theurgy skill tricks for that).
So he could still counter with Dispel Magic, even if he doesn't have Battlemagic Perception or something similar.

[Melcar]

Yes. According to Counterspell, if they cast any spell at all, you can make a spellcraft check to identify it, regardless of the components it has.

Unless it has no verbal or somatic components. I have also read the Tome and Blood, but since that contradics the core skill description of spellcraft, I am simply going with the 3.5 version of PHB. Despite the splatook saying otherwise.

Indeed, I am avare of the use of dispel magic as a counterspell option when no identification is possible, as in the example of no component - and no visual effect.

In terms of whether or not any spellcasting is detectible when no component or no visual effect is pressent, I want to ask what it is the enemy is detecting? If the Mage B is casting a spell with his hands in his pocket, and so sound or visual effect is present how is Mage A detecting spellcating at all? It might say so in the rules... I just cant find it. Can anyone shine ligt on this? Both in the rules and simply by logic... when Mage B have hidden all detectible effects of spellcasting what do you guys think mage A is detecting?

[Necroticplague]

In terms of whether or not any spellcasting is detectible when no component or no visual effect is pressent, I want to ask what it is the enemy is detecting? If the Mage B is casting a spell with his hands in his pocket, and so sound or visual effect is present how is Mage A detecting spellcating at all? It might say so in the rules... I just cant find it. Can anyone shine ligt on this? Both in the rules and simply by logic... when Mage B have hidden all detectible effects of spellcasting what do you guys think mage A is detecting?

A lapse in concentration. Even spells without components still provoke attacks of oppurtunity. When you ready an action to counterspell, you're actively watching him like a hawk for any any sign she casts a spell. So if she suddenly takes a moment to concentrate, you notice it, and begin your counterspell.

Or maybe spells have some kind of minor display, like powers do,and you can pick up on that.

[Melcar]

A lapse in concentration. Even spells without components still provoke attacks of oppurtunity. When you ready an action to counterspell, you're actively watching him like a hawk for any any sign she casts a spell. So if she suddenly takes a moment to concentrate, you notice it, and begin your counterspell.

Or maybe spells have some kind of minor display, like powers do,and you can pick up on that.

Is this eluded to anywhere? Would it not be logical to assume, that if feats are chosen to remove all presented aspect of spellcasting, that none are left and thus non are detectible? Here im talking about 4 feats in total.

And another thing. Does the casting time of a Standard actions casting time spell, become swift, when readying an action to cast it as counterspell? I am wondering since Williams kind of hinted that a spell should mirror the casting time of the spell trying to counter, or be shorter/quicker in casting time. Here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050524a)

So if we assume a standard action spell take 3 seconds to cast and a swift action takes 1 second to cast, then if our reaction time is zero, we still can’t use get the spell off in time to counter... So is it correct, that readying an action reduces the cast time, effectively adding the quickened spell meta-magic feat?

[Necroticplague]

Is this eluded to anywhere? Would it not be logical to assume, that if feats are chosen to remove all presented aspect of spellcasting, that none are left and thus non are detectible? Here im talking about 4 feats in total.
Is what eluded to? that casting still provokes AoOs? That's the default. You'd need special rules stating the spell doesn't provoke AoOs. The only line I see that could make a spell not provoke is Quicken.
That casting still requires concentration, even with no components? It's flat-out said in the spellcasting section that "to cast a spell, you must concentrate".
Yes, it would be logical, IF you could do that. However, there's no way to remove the concentration you need for a spell. You can remove the need to say stuff, move your hand, reach in your component pouch, but never the need to concentrate. So someone watching you for any sign of spellcasting would, at the very lest, notice you stop for a second to concentrate.



And another thing. Does the casting time of a Standard actions casting time spell, become swift, when readying an action to cast it as counterspell? I am wondering since Williams kind of hinted that a spell should mirror the casting time of the spell trying to counter, or be shorter/quicker in casting time. Here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050524a)

1. No, it doesn't. A readied spell is still a standard action, it's just a standard action you're taking on someone else's turn.
2.The actual rules for counterspelling don't say you need to counterspell using a spell with a shorter casting time than the one you're contering.
3. Where does that article even imply that? The closest I can see is referring to the fact you can only ready standard, move, or free actions (and by extension, swift actions), so your counterspell has to be one of those.

[Melcar]

Is what eluded to? that casting still provokes AoOs? That's the default. You'd need special rules stating the spell doesn't provoke AoOs. The only line I see that could make a spell not provoke is Quicken.
That casting still requires concentration, even with no components? It's flat-out said in the spellcasting section that "to cast a spell, you must concentrate".
Yes, it would be logical, IF you could do that. However, there's no way to remove the concentration you need for a spell. You can remove the need to say stuff, move your hand, reach in your component pouch, but never the need to concentrate. So someone watching you for any sign of spellcasting would, at the very lest, notice you stop for a second to concentrate.

So if the only evident thing is concentration, then I believe a spot check is in order... Yes? The two casters could stand 100ft. apart or en dim light... right?




1. No, it doesn't. A readied spell is still a standard action, it's just a standard action you're taking on someone else's turn.
2.The actual rules for counterspelling don't say you need to counterspell using a spell with a shorter casting time than the one you're contering.
3. Where does that article even imply that? The closest I can see is referring to the fact you can only ready standard, move, or free actions (and by extension, swift actions), so your counterspell has to be one of those.

"Since you use a standard action as a readied action (see the Player's Handbook), you should use a spell with a casting time of one standard action or less as a counterspell (but see the section on counterspell variants in Part Two)."

That might not be indicative, but then apply logic. If a swift action casting time is cast faster, meaning its away traveling towards you, before you can even finish casting your spell, then how is it then possible to counterspell, when your casting time is too slow? Again I put forth the notion that you can’t counterspell as spell you can’t catch, due to it being cast faster than you cast your spell... Anything other seems illogical. Counterspelling is however interrupting the casting... not the spell as it travels in mid air.

[Necroticplague]

So if the only evident thing is concentration, then I believe a spot check is in order... Yes? The two casters could stand 100ft. apart or en dim light... right? Considering how counterspell is already weak, and requires investment in one skill already, I see no reason for this. If they're not hidden enough that you can see them, you can make it out.


"Since you use a standard action as a readied action (see the Player's Handbook), you should use a spell with a casting time of one standard action or less as a counterspell (but see the section on counterspell variants in Part Two)." I saw that part. That's referring to the fact you can only ready a standard action or less, like I said in my earlier post. Allow me to quote with emphasis:

Since you use a standard action as a readied action (see the Player's Handbook), you should use a spell with a casting time of one standard action or less as a counterspell (but see the section on counterspell variants in Part Two).Of course, saying "should" is a bit of a misnomer. It's actually a 'must'.


That might not be indicative, but then apply logic. If a swift action casting time is cast faster, meaning its away traveling towards you, before you can even finish casting your spell, then how is it then possible to counterspell, when your casting time is too slow? Again I put forth the notion that you can’t counterspell as spell you can’t catch, due to it being cast faster than you cast your spell... Anything other seems illogical. Counterspelling is however interrupting the casting... not the spell as it travels in mid air.
I see no reason why counterspelling can't be meeting it in mid-air, with the enegies canceling out. A fireball and weird anti-fireball meet, and both fizzle, seems appropriate enough. It's also possible that, while the spell is faster to cast, you can spot the 'wind up' so to speak, and start casting before they actually cast.

[Melcar]

Considering how counterspell is already weak, and requires investment in one skill already, I see no reason for this. If they're not hidden enough that you can see them, you can make it out.

I will respectfully disagree. I do however respect and appreciate your position on this. This really has nothing to do about balance, but whether or not the rules actually have taken into account all it should.


I saw that part. That's referring to the fact you can only ready a standard action or less, like I said in my earlier post. Allow me to quote with emphasis:
Of course, saying "should" is a bit of a misnomer. It's actually a 'must'.

A valid point no doubt...



I see no reason why counterspelling can't be meeting it in mid-air, with the enegies canceling out. A fireball and weird anti-fireball meet, and both fizzle, seems appropriate enough. It's also possible that, while the spell is faster to cast, you can spot the 'wind up' so to speak, and start casting before they actually cast.

"[...]using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character." From here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm)

Wind up...? But then one could assume the counterspeller to also have a wind up or reaction time, like most beings do... which let’s just say cancel each other out, then we are again left with casting time. My citing above defines counterspelling as happening during casting, not after. Indeed, if Im challenging the rules, I might be challenging that too, but my problem stems from exactly this; namely that if it has to happen during the casting, then I don’t think the rules make that much sense. Not in regards to when trying to counter a swift action spell, with a standard action spell. I don’t think that makes sense at all.

The rules says: "Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered", which in itself is untrue. Not only does, still spell, silent spell but also heightened spell all affect countering in one or the other way... My feeling is, that the designers did not think about quickened spell either.

Don’t get my, wrong, I understand and fully can see the rules clearly state something, but as multiple post in this forum indicates, many dysfunctional rules have been written... I believe the ability to counter a swift action spell, with a standard action spell is one of these design flats. And I'm simply trying to present the fallacies as I see them.

I do want to stress though, that I fully appreciate and take into account any comments, however disregarding I might come across.

[Necroticplague]

I will respectfully disagree. I do however respect and appreciate your position on this. This really has nothing to do about balance, but whether or not the rules actually have taken into account all it should. Which is entirely going to depend on what you think the rules should take into account. I think the counterspell rules are too painfully-specific as is, without having to tack on more rolls for something that isn't that good in the first place.


Wind up...? But then one could assume the counterspeller to also have a wind up or reaction time, like most beings do... which let’s just say cancel each other out, then we are again left with casting time. My citing above defines counterspelling as happening during casting, not after. Indeed, if Im challenging the rules, I might be challenging that too, but my problem stems from exactly this; namely that if it has to happen during the casting, then I don’t think the rules make that much sense. Not in regards to when trying to counter a swift action spell, with a standard action spell. I don’t think that makes sense at all.
Except that counterspells aren't normal versions of the spell. It's entirely possible that the 'counter-fireball' could be much easier or quicker to cast than the normal fireball, because it has much less involved in it.


The rules says: "Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered", which in itself is untrue. Not only does, still spell, silent spell but also heightened spell all affect countering in one or the other way... My feeling is, that the designers did not think about quickened spell either. You're assuming that is untrue. The rules don't seem to say anywhere that a silent, still or heighten effect the countering (beyond Heightening raising the DC to identify).


Don’t get my, wrong, I understand and fully can see the rules clearly state something, but as multiple post in this forum indicates, many dysfunctional rules have been written... I believe the ability to counter a swift action spell, with a standard action spell is one of these design flats. And I'm simply trying to present the fallacies as I see them.

A dysfunction comes when rules contradict. The rules aren't contradicting here at all, only your perception of what they mean. You seem to be working from what you think the fluff of counterspelling is, seeing that it doesn't match up with the crunch, and then saying the problem is with the crunch. I prefer to start with the crunch, then build the fluff for how it works based on that.

Now, where's that Giant quote about assumptions when you need it?

[Jormengand]

Now, where's that Giant quote about assumptions when you need it?

You mean "Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text, and complaining that the text is wrong, why don't you make assumptions that do fit with the text?"?

[Melcar]

You're assuming that is untrue. The rules don't seem to say anywhere that a silent, still or heighten effect the countering (beyond Heightening raising the DC to identify).

Except you cant identify a spell with a spellcraft check, if there is no verbal and somatic component.

Spellcraft says: "You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components."

And Williams says: "The rules don't come right out and say so, but since you must see a somatic (or material) component or hear a verbal component to identify any spell as it is being cast, you cannot identify a spell that doesn't have any verbal, somatic, or material components."

Just to be clear on that.

I dont have any further coments on your other possitions. We simply seem to view counterspelling differently, and I see no reason to keep stating the same arguments over and over and not getting anywhere... You disagree, and in my view try to invent things to justify why the rules are as they are, where I keep trying to understand how to rules does not fit with my logic, and how I see things happening... which obviously isnt your logic.

Thanks you for all the comments