PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Alternate Counterspell (3.5)



rferries
2020-05-09, 02:14 PM
There's currently healthy debate going on about 5e counterspelling in both the gaming and homebrew forums, and it inspired me to start one for 3.5 to incorporate into my oft-delayed wizard rework. To that end, I have some questions:

1) Is the current 3.5 counterspelling mechanic fine as it is? Alternatively, should a counterspelling mechanic exist at all?

2) Should there be dedicated counterspells (beyond just dispel magic and the various "this spell counters and dispels _ spells" clauses)? Should there be one, or multiple? Perhaps even school-specific counterspells e.g. "counter necromancy", etc. I've brewed up potential dedicated versions before (see spoiler).

Counterspell, Lesser
Abjuration (Antimagic)
Level: Cleric 3, Druid 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 immediate action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) or Personal
Target: One spellcaster or You
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

The druid's binding spell leaps at you again - a writhing coil of ensnaring, emerald-green light. You smile dismissively; with nothing more than a wave of your hand and a simple "Solutum.", the spell dissolves into nothingness before it can fully entrap you. He was a fool to try the same enchantment twice.

You instantly counter a spell of 3rd level or lower, even if it is not your turn and even if you have already cast a spell this round. You may counter a spell cast by a spellcaster within range, or any spell targeting yourself (regardless of the distance to that spell's caster). In either case, you must successfully identify the spell to be countered with a Spellcraft check or the lesser counterspell is wasted.

Counterspell
Abjuration (Antimagic)
Level: Cleric 6, Druid 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 immediate action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) or Personal
Target: One spellcaster or You
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell functions as lesser counterspell, save that you may counter a spell of 6th level or lower.

Counterspell, Greater
Abjuration (Antimagic)
Level: Cleric 9, Druid 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 immediate action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) or Personal
Target: One spellcaster or You
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell functions as lesser counterspell, save that you may counter a spell of 9th level or lower.

3) Should counterspelling allow a Will save, or spell resistance?

4) Should counterspelling require a caster level check? If so, should it be an opposed check, or should it be against a flat DC (e.g. DC = opponent's caster level +10)?

5) Should it be possible to overcome a counterspell by expending higher and/or additional spell slots (or spell points if using that variant)? Alternatively, if your spell is countered should you regain the spell slot (or some/all of the spell points you expended), to make the loss less painful in a metagame sense?

6) Should there be different actions for counterspelling e.g. an immediate action if you're countering a spell directly targeting yourself, a readied action if you're countering a spell targeting someone else, etc.?

7) Should it be possible to counterspell a counterspell?

8) Any other thoughts?

Thanks in advance for your input!

Nifft
2020-05-09, 03:32 PM
In my experience, 3.x counterspelling is inconvenient and thus only infrequently used, so balance issues may be at a lower priority in most players' minds.

IMHO it'd be enough to remove the Readied action text and just make the basic Counterspell rules work as an Immediate action, something like:



Counterspells

It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

How Counterspells Work - When you perceive a spell being cast, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things.

To counterspell, you must then cast the appropriate spell as an Immediate action. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.

Counterspelling Metamagic Spells - Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered

Specific Exceptions - Some spells specifically counter each other, especially when they have diametrically opposed effects.

Dispel Magic - This spell can counter itself, but isn't generally able to counter other spells.


... and perhaps for balance make a way for Sorcerers (but not prepared casters) to counterspell anything with either an appropriate slot, or a spell of the appropriate school at the right spell level.

nonsi
2020-05-09, 07:43 PM
... and perhaps for balance make a way for Sorcerers (but not prepared casters) to counterspell anything with either an appropriate slot.



As far as I can remember, this is the first proposal that I'v ever seen that could give true justification for Sorcerer to be a separate class on its own, instead of a Wizard variant.
Finally something for the class to say: "ladies and gentlemen, this is mine".
I'd just add "... or higher" (if spell slots from the same level have been exhausted).


[EDIT]: Now that I think of it, this would give the Sorcerer a huge advantage over other spellcasters.
It should be an option that comes with a lot of character resources toll.

PairO'Dice Lost
2020-05-09, 08:01 PM
IMHO it'd be enough to remove the Readied action text and just make the basic Counterspell rules work as an Immediate action

Agreed. 3e spell-for-spell counterspelling works fine and is well-balanced if you reduce the action cost, and doesn't need any extra saves or SR (since you're targeting the spell, not the caster). The 5e one-counterspell-to-rule-them-all setup has several major problems, and trying to mimic it with level juggling or counter-counterspelling or similar is, I feel, a pretty big mistake.


Dispel Magic - This spell can counter itself, but isn't generally able to counter other spells.


Actually, I'd still allow counterspelling with dispels, but only with a readied action like in the standard rules. Having the last-ditch option to attempt a counterspell with dispel magic is helpful if your spell selection just doesn't line up otherwise, and "counterspell specialist" as a niche for dedicated Abjurers with the appropriate feat investment is something still worth supporting.


... and perhaps for balance make a way for Sorcerers (but not prepared casters) to counterspell anything with either an appropriate slot, or a spell of the appropriate school at the right spell level.

When I've tweaked the sorcerer's counterspelling capabilities before, I've had it work based on matching or opposing schools and descriptors (countering a Divination with a Divination or an Illusion, a [Fire] spell with a [Fire] spell or a [Cold] or [Water] spell, and so forth). It allows for a bit more flexibility to distinguish them from wizards, and creatively countering a lightning bolt with an earth spell to "ground" it or the like is the kind of classic thing you'd see in a magician's duel in literature.

That might make it too easy for them to counter things in combination with the automatic action reduction, as nonsi noted, so requiring them to ready an action to do that (which isn't too bad, since "ready an action to counter with the majority of my spells known" is much less likely to be a waste of an action than "ready an action to counter if I happen to have the exact spell needed") or giving them daily usage limits or something would be reasonable.

nonsi
2020-05-10, 01:50 PM
Agreed. 3e spell-for-spell counterspelling works fine and is well-balanced if you reduce the action cost, and doesn't need any extra saves or SR (since you're targeting the spell, not the caster). The 5e one-counterspell-to-rule-them-all setup has several major problems, and trying to mimic it with level juggling or counter-counterspelling or similar is, I feel, a pretty big mistake.



Actually, I'd still allow counterspelling with dispels, but only with a readied action like in the standard rules. Having the last-ditch option to attempt a counterspell with dispel magic is helpful if your spell selection just doesn't line up otherwise, and "counterspell specialist" as a niche for dedicated Abjurers with the appropriate feat investment is something still worth supporting.



When I've tweaked the sorcerer's counterspelling capabilities before, I've had it work based on matching or opposing schools and descriptors (countering a Divination with a Divination or an Illusion, a [Fire] spell with a [Fire] spell or a [Cold] or [Water] spell, and so forth). It allows for a bit more flexibility to distinguish them from wizards, and creatively countering a lightning bolt with an earth spell to "ground" it or the like is the kind of classic thing you'd see in a magician's duel in literature.

That might make it too easy for them to counter things in combination with the automatic action reduction, as nonsi noted, so requiring them to ready an action to do that (which isn't too bad, since "ready an action to counter with the majority of my spells known" is much less likely to be a waste of an action than "ready an action to counter if I happen to have the exact spell needed") or giving them daily usage limits or something would be reasonable.


I do see the necessity for requiring to ready an action, but I'd like to suggest an idea I just had.
If you need to ready an action and the best outcome you could hope for is stalemate, then you've already lost before you've started.
I suggest exploring the possibility of having some chance of redirecting the spell effect to an arbitrary location if more successful than usual and being able to redirect the spell as the "counterspeller" desires if exceptionally successful.
The goal should be to try and make the mechanic as simple yet fair as possible.

Another angle to explore, is that counterspelling could be made as an immediate action, but doing so denies the ability to cast spells until the beginning of your next turn.

PairO'Dice Lost
2020-05-10, 02:48 PM
If you need to ready an action and the best outcome you could hope for is stalemate, then you've already lost before you've started.

You're forgetting about issues of action advantage here. If the BBEG and the party sorcerer stalemate each other, but the rest of the party has more actions than the BBEG's minions, that's still a valuable trade of actions, especially if e.g. the BBEG was going to cast a control spell to disable the party so the wizard traded 1 of his actions to save the party 4+ actions in getting out of the area.

The only reason readying an action to counterspell is seen as a bad thing is that you're trading your action for a small chance that you might be able to stalemate the enemy caster; if you're doing so for a nearly-guaranteed chance because you can counterspell with a broad array of spells, it's a pretty good tradeoff.


I suggest exploring the possibility of having some chance of redirecting the spell effect to an arbitrary location if more successful than usual and being able to redirect the spell as the "counterspeller" desires if exceptionally successful.
The goal should be to try and make the mechanic as simple yet fair as possible.

Being able to redirect a countered spell or turn it back on the caster is an incredibly powerful and rare effect as-is (ring of spell battle, Srinshee's spell shift, Archmage's Mastery of Counterspelling, and...that's it) and shouldn't at all be made the default for counterspelling. That turns things from stalemating to effectively giving costing the counterspeller zero actions of any kind (since they spend X action to counterspell that they could have spend on casting an offensive spell, then get to "cast" an offensive spell for free when they counter).


Another angle to explore, is that counterspelling could be made as an immediate action, but doing so denies the ability to cast spells until the beginning of your next turn.

Once you've used your immediate action you already can't cast again until the beginning of your next turn, so I don't see how that changes anything.

nonsi
2020-05-12, 07:08 AM
You're forgetting about issues of action advantage here. If the BBEG and the party sorcerer stalemate each other, but the rest of the party has more actions than the BBEG's minions, that's still a valuable trade of actions, especially if e.g. the BBEG was going to cast a control spell to disable the party so the wizard traded 1 of his actions to save the party 4+ actions in getting out of the area.

The only reason readying an action to counterspell is seen as a bad thing is that you're trading your action for a small chance that you might be able to stalemate the enemy caster; if you're doing so for a nearly-guaranteed chance because you can counterspell with a broad array of spells, it's a pretty good tradeoff.


TBH, the “single big cannon + mooks” is really getting old.
Obviously neutralizing the big cannon’s action in a given round is huge. If “Big Cannon BBEG” didn’t take it into account that’s his (the DM’s) problem.
So it should be. Action economy is a big issue.

There are plenty of ways to make a BBEG encounters:


A tough group of relatively equal-powered opponents
Traps
Obstacles
Env. Hazards
Etc


Therefore I propose that after a successful Spellcraft check, an opposed level check is made as follows:
Each side rolls 1d20 + CL + SL + primary ability score. (a defending sorcerer ccould use a higher level spell)
If the defender equates or tops the caster, the spell is denied.
If the defender tops the caster by +10 or more, the spell is reflected back at the caster.
Even a sorcerer would never reach 50% chance of having his attempt not go to waste when facing an equal-leveled opponent.





Being able to redirect a countered spell or turn it back on the caster is an incredibly powerful and rare effect as-is (ring of spell battle, Srinshee's spell shift, Archmage's Mastery of Counterspelling, and...that's it) and shouldn't at all be made the default for counterspelling. That turns things from stalemating to effectively giving costing the counterspeller zero actions of any kind (since they spend X action to counterspell that they could have spend on casting an offensive spell, then get to "cast" an offensive spell for free when they counter).



It's only incredibly powerful if it’s reliable. And as noted above – it’s far from it.






Once you've used your immediate action you already can't cast again until the beginning of your next turn, so I don't see how that changes anything.



TBH, don’t remember ever encountering that rule. Where is it written? (book, page, location)

rferries
2020-05-12, 08:40 AM
Thanks everyone for the healthy debate! It's looking like Nifft's reduced-action counterspelling will be the way to go, +/- PairO'Dice Lost's broader counterspelling, +/- Nonsi's level-dependent chance of turning the spell.


TBH, don’t remember ever encountering that rule. Where is it written? (book, page, location)

I didn't remember this either, but from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions):


Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

rferries
2020-05-12, 10:30 AM
Sorry for double-posting, here's a set of guidelines along PairO'Dice's idea:

Counterspelling Guidelines
A spell may always be used to counter and dispel itself.

Any spell from a particular subschool can counter and dispel any spell of equal or lower level from the same subschool.

Any spell with a particular descriptor can counter and dispel any spell of equal or lower level with the same descriptor.

Any spell with a particular descriptor can counter and dispel any spell of equal or lower level with an opposed descriptor (see Table), and vice versa.



Descriptor
Opposed Descriptor


Air
Earth


Chaotic

Lawful


Cold

Fire



Darkness
Light


Evil
Good


Fire
Water



Additional Rules
[Death] spells counter and dispel Conjuration (Healing) spells of equal and lower level, and vice versa.

Divination spells counter and dispel Illusion spells of equal and lower level, but not vice versa.

Enchantment (Charm) spells counter and dispel [Fear] spells of equal and lower level, and vice versa.

PairO'Dice Lost
2020-05-12, 01:14 PM
TBH, the “single big cannon + mooks” is really getting old.
Obviously neutralizing the big cannon’s action in a given round is huge. If “Big Cannon BBEG” didn’t take it into account that’s his (the DM’s) problem.

The same thing applies if it's not the BBEG being stalemated, of course. If the BBEG is, I don't know, a death knight being buffed by a cleric necromancer cohort then the BBEG himself is fine but it's still a 4:2 action advantage going to a 3:1 action advantage and the party still comes out on top. The reverse is also true. If the BBEG is packing six near-even-CR henchbeings instead of one or two and the PCs are still a party of four, then the henchbeings can occupy the party casters leaving the BBEG to mop up the other PCs.

Basically, stalemating an opponent is never a "loss" so long as it gives your side an action or resource advantage over the opposing side.


Therefore I propose that after a successful Spellcraft check, an opposed level check is made as follows:
Each side rolls 1d20 + CL + SL + primary ability score. (a defending sorcerer ccould use a higher level spell)
If the defender equates or tops the caster, the spell is denied.
If the defender tops the caster by +10 or more, the spell is reflected back at the caster.
Even a sorcerer would never reach 50% chance of having his attempt not go to waste when facing an equal-leveled opponent.

There's no need to tilt things in the favor of the higher-level character like that when a plain ol' dispel check will suffice; just the added swinginess of making an opposed roll rather than giving the defender a base DC of 11 will negate most of the benefit there.


TBH, don’t remember ever encountering that rule. Where is it written? (book, page, location)

As rferries pointed out, I was referencing the fact that you have no actions left after using your immediate except in very niche corner cases that aren't worth ruling around (e.g. being White Raven Tactics'd by a party warblade or having a contingent celerity) so specifying an inability to cast then as an extra limitation does nothing.

Unless by "next turn" you meant something like "if you counterspell between turn 1 and turn 2 you can't cast at all on turn 2 and have to wait until the start of turn 3 to cast again," which is even more punitive action-wise than normal counterspelling.


Sorry for double-posting, here's a set of guidelines along PairO'Dice's idea:

Yep, that's pretty similar to the list I used when I used that houserule. Though I did have a few tweaks: firstly, I had a more systematized subschool setup, so being able to counter e.g. a Conjuration (Summoning) with an Abjuration (Banishment) or a Divination (Revelation) with an Illusion (Glamer) was a thing.

Secondly, I allowed casters to ad hoc opposition spells (like the earth spell vs. lightning spell example from earlier, or countering parching touch--a descriptor-less Necromancy spell dealing desiccation damage--with a [Water] spell, or the like) using a Spellcraft check with a DC based on the "distance" between schools, but that's probably the kind of thing you'd want to reserve for a feat or class feature in a more generic setup.

nonsi
2020-05-15, 07:49 AM
As rferries pointed out, I was referencing the fact that you have no actions left after using your immediate except in very niche corner cases that aren't worth ruling around (e.g. being White Raven Tactics'd by a party warblade or having a contingent celerity) so specifying an inability to cast then as an extra limitation does nothing.


Unless I missed something really basic, an immediate action is an out-of-turn swift action, so using your immediate action should not deny you the ability to cast standard action spells during your turn to come.
My sus=ggestion was that redirecting a counterspelled spell would constitute a casting of a standard spell during your turn to come, That seems like a decent trade off to me.





Unless by "next turn" you meant something like "if you counterspell between turn 1 and turn 2 you can't cast at all on turn 2 and have to wait until the start of turn 3 to cast again," which is even more punitive action-wise than normal counterspelling.


Redirection is a well-gained action, so I wouldn't call it punitive.

nonsi
2020-05-15, 10:14 AM
Sorry for double-posting, here's a set of guidelines along PairO'Dice's idea:

Counterspelling Guidelines
A spell may always be used to counter and dispel itself.

Any spell from a particular subschool can counter and dispel any spell of equal or lower level from the same subschool.

Any spell with a particular descriptor can counter and dispel any spell of equal or lower level with the same descriptor.

Any spell with a particular descriptor can counter and dispel any spell of equal or lower level with an opposed descriptor (see Table), and vice versa.



Descriptor
Opposed Descriptor


Air
Earth


Chaotic

Lawful


Cold

Fire



Darkness
Light


Evil
Good


Fire
Water



Additional Rules
[Death] spells counter and dispel Conjuration (Healing) spells of equal and lower level, and vice versa.

Divination spells counter and dispel Illusion spells of equal and lower level, but not vice versa.

Enchantment (Charm) spells counter and dispel [Fear] spells of equal and lower level, and vice versa.


Do you intend to touch the action-associated mechanics in any way regarding counterspelling, or are you keeping things as the official rules, action-wise?

PairO'Dice Lost
2020-05-15, 01:58 PM
Unless I missed something really basic, an immediate action is an out-of-turn swift action, so using your immediate action should not deny you the ability to cast standard action spells during your turn to come.
My sus=ggestion was that redirecting a counterspelled spell would constitute a casting of a standard spell during your turn to come, That seems like a decent trade off to me.

It looked to me like your suggestions about redirecting spells and immediate-action counterspelling were two separate proposals, not the same one. If you meant that normal counterspelling could be done as an immediate action and if you choose to instead redirect the spell instead of negating it then you give up your next standard action to do so, then yeah, that would be a pretty good action trade.

heavyfuel
2020-05-15, 02:23 PM
Counterspelling in 3.5 is already pretty easy to do and, despite the massive number of peple who seem to think readying actions is a waste of time, super powerful to boot.

Adding a new Counterspell option would make spellcasters stronger by a significant margin, which is not someting a system like 3.5 should aim for, considering spellcasters already reign supreme.

Round 1: Ally Wizard (AW) loses initiative, so Enemy Wizard (EW). AW's team is too far way for BFC, so EW buffs his teamates with Haste. AW readies his action with the following trigger "As soon as EW takes any offensive action such as attacking, activating a magic item, or casting a spell, I'll take my action". According to Rules Compendium, the trigger for your readied action can be as simple or as complex as you want, so this is prefectly valid.

Round 2: EW starts casting, AW rolls Spellcraft and knows EW's casting Polymorph, so AW decides to cast Fireball at EW. EW takes 24 damage and now has to make a DC 38 Concentration check. Even with max ranks and a +5 item, EW needs a 20 to pass. EW fails their Concentration check. AW has just Counterspelled a lv 4 spell with a lv 3 one AND has dealt significant damage to EW.

Readied actions are ridiculously effective against any but the most well optimized casters. Even then, it's only because super optimized casters will win the Init and then cast a single spell that completely wins the fight.

Adding an Immediate action spell called Counterspell doesn't stop these TO casters and it does nothing that readying an action already doesn't do, but better.

However, it does make it so that winners of the Initiative can gain even more of an advantage by impeding slower casters to cast. The game becomes even more rocket-tag than it already is.

PairO'Dice Lost
2020-05-15, 03:18 PM
The problem with readying an action to counterspell is not the "readying an action" part, it's the "...to counterspell" part. Readying an action to blast someone is, as you point out, very effective in terms of both action usage and and resource usage, but standard counterspelling involves giving up the same action for a significantly smaller chance of success because you have to have one or more specific spells readied to guarantee success or use a dispel that requires a check that's hard for you to boost against a DC that's comparatively easy for an enemy to boost.

People want to houserule counterspelling to be competitive because (A) it has the "beam battle (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeamOWar)" or "wizard duel" feel that readying to blast doesn't and (B) it works for any kind of caster, when not every caster has good blasting spells available and so can't make use of the ready-to-blast option.

rferries
2020-05-15, 07:53 PM
Secondly, I allowed casters to ad hoc opposition spells (like the earth spell vs. lightning spell example from earlier, or countering parching touch--a descriptor-less Necromancy spell dealing desiccation damage--with a [Water] spell, or the like) using a Spellcraft check with a DC based on the "distance" between schools, but that's probably the kind of thing you'd want to reserve for a feat or class feature in a more generic setup.

Very nice! I'll try to work that in too, the flavour is great.


Do you intend to touch the action-associated mechanics in any way regarding counterspelling, or are you keeping things as the official rules, action-wise?

I'm currently thinking using Nifft's suggested action adjustment, plus PairO'Dice's "versatile" counterspelling", plus your suggested spell-turning mechanic. Some or all of those might be allocated to feats though.



People want to houserule counterspelling to be competitive because (A) it has the "beam battle (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeamOWar)" or "wizard duel" feel that readying to blast doesn't and (B) it works for any kind of caster, when not every caster has good blasting spells available and so can't make use of the ready-to-blast option.

Yes, this was my reasoning exactly. I'm also considering working in a "partial counterspell" mechanic, so that a single BBEG isn't totally locked-down by counterspells/a PC isn't frustrated if they're counterspelled themselves.

nonsi
2020-05-16, 12:07 AM
Very nice! I'll try to work that in too, the flavour is great.



I'm currently thinking using Nifft's suggested action adjustment, plus PairO'Dice's "versatile" counterspelling", plus your suggested spell-turning mechanic. Some or all of those might be allocated to feats though.




Yes, this was my reasoning exactly. I'm also considering working in a "partial counterspell" mechanic, so that a single BBEG isn't totally locked-down by counterspells/a PC isn't frustrated if they're counterspelled themselves.


Seems like you have a lot on your plate :smallbiggrin:

rferries
2020-05-16, 09:18 AM
Seems like you have a lot on your plate :smallbiggrin:

Ha not that much, I just keep on getting distracted.

Nifft
2020-05-16, 01:47 PM
I posted a more complete version of my Counterspell rules in its own thread:


https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612455-Nifft-s-Counterspell-Rules-3-5e