Improving the counterspell mechanic

[Elder_Basilisk]

Counterspell never gets used--perhaps with the exception of Pathfinder's arcanist if they choose the counterspell ability. So how could it be improved?

Dispel magic is an immediate action if the counterspell version is used

Improved counterspell feat makes counterspell an immediate action

Improved counterspell feat let's you keep the spell slot when you counterspell (maybe only if you win an opposed caster level check).

Which would be the best options for making the mechanic worthwhile? Or would it be better to forget that the counterspell option exists and save the page count?

[Troacctid]

Don't do it! It's a trap!

Counterspells are an unfun mechanic when they are powerful. You don't want every spellcaster to be packing immediate-action counterspells with high chances of success. We have that in 5e, where counterspelling is both reliable and action-efficient, and it's a miserable gameplay experience. I would strongly advise against backporting it.

If players are interested in improving their countermagic, there are ways to do so. Reactive Counterspell is a feat. Divine Defiance is even better, if you're a cleric. Archmage lets you reflect spells when you counter them. Multiple different magic items in MIC include the ability to counterspell as an immediate action a limited number of times per day. Celerity or spell haven can do it too.

[RandomPeasant]

Counterspells are an unfun mechanic when they are powerful. You don't want every spellcaster to be packing immediate-action counterspells with high chances of success. We have that in 5e, where counterspelling is both reliable and action-efficient, and it's a miserable gameplay experience. I would strongly advise against backporting it.

This is absolutely true, and is an instance of a more general principle: design should use abilities that work by negating other abilities sparingly. MTG decks that are full of counterspells and removal and nothing else are miserable to play against. Generally, the point of a game is to do things and have things happen. Having a character whose entire shtick is to stop things from happening stops being fun really quickly. Counterspelling is particularly bad because it amplifies the action economy advantage the PCs already have. If the Cleric or Wizard can spend their actions stopping the BBEG from doing anything, the fight becomes an exercise in die-rolling that is not going to be fun for anyone.

[Darrin]

The current problem is readying an action to counterspell has a high cost (the spellcaster does nothing else that turn) with no obvious benefit (Is there a spell to counter? Was it worth wasting my turn? Is the battlefield any different?). The best outcome is one enemy spellcaster and the counterspeller had no effect on the ongoing battle. This is not particularly dramatic or exciting.

Outside of design theory, ideally you want counterspell to be an interesting tactical option that rewards smart players for out-thinking their opponents. You want a player excited that he prepared to counterspell, the enemy spellcaster should be surprised and upset, and a successful counterspell should feel like it had a significant impact on the battle.

So, the three options you suggested:



1. Dispel magic is an immediate action if the counterspell version is used


I am leery of this one because it does not require any investment or decision from the player beforehand, as dispel magic is so useful as a spell, most spellcasters prepare it without thinking too much about counterspelling beforehand. It may make counterspelling more common, but not particularly dramatic or exciting. If a counterspell happens, the two spellcasters cancel each other out, but it's not a "Gotcha!" or "Oh crap!" moment for either of them.



2. Improved counterspell feat makes counterspell an immediate action


This is probably worth exploring. A player who invests in this feat can use counterspelling without being overly penalized, and feels rewarded for thinking ahead that counterspelling is important enough to get the feat. If the player makes a spellcraft check, identifies a spell being cast that would thoroughly destroy the party, and they were smart enough to have dispel magic prepared, then they can feel particularly pleased with themselves for successfully counterspelling. Also, they still get to act on their own turn, so they haven't given up the opportunity to cast a spell that could still have an impact on the battle.

(Note: Fiendish Codex II has the Divine Defiance feat, which is similar - spend a Turn Undead attempt to counterspell as an immediate action. So you can suggest this to your players without changing the existing rules. Well, at least for clerics, I guess. Getting TU on a Wiz/Sor is usually unpleasant.)



3. Improved counterspell feat let's you keep the spell slot when you counterspell (maybe only if you win an opposed caster level check).


Not sure I like this one. This might reward a player who specifically builds around buffing opposed caster level checks, but without an immediate action available, it's hard to see any direct benefit to wasting your turn. You definitely get a "Gotcha!" moment if a player successfully counters and gets to keep the spell slot, but it's not obvious if the spell you get to keep would still be useful in the battle, or that you'll get a chance to actually cast it.

From a philosophical standpoint, I'm not sure I understand how it works: if you countered a spell but didn't actually expend any resources to do so, then what resource did you use to counter the spell?

Also, I think it fails the TMBK test ("Too Much Book-Keeping", what do I roll against, does this NPC get a bonus for high Int/Cha, did I roll high enough, was that caster check for the dispel or to keep the spell, why am I rolling twice for the same thing, do I get to keep the spell, will I remember correctly later that I used this spell to counter but got to keep it anyway?).