Counterspell

I really hadn't given counterspell much thought till I started looking at it during the latest survey.

I think as a l2 spell, it is too limiting and too weak.

What if we rethought counterspell - and saw it as the wizard equivalent of Protect, Parry or Guardian.

Lets make counterspell a minor spell (a cantrip).  This lets wizards have an active defense similar to that of the fighter or guardian.  A bit stronger in some ways (but only because the spells it can negate are stronger) - and weaker in other ways (if it still requires the wizard to give up their action following its use as a reaction).

This sounds like a good way to help the wizards with their defenses (and to allow them to provide for the parties defense).

(Naturally - it would no longer be automatic against L1 spells in that case).


Alternately - it needs to be seriously fixed as it is a waste of time now.  It takes a 2nd level spell slot, it uses the wizard's reaction and costs him his next action, and it isn't even guaranteed.  In fact - it's less likely to succeed than most attacks.

I can't imagine anyone wasting a slot on this - at least not until they are 10th level and don't have anything better to do with the 2nd level slot.

Carl
I agree that Counterspell as it stands is rather worthless. I think I would lean more towards keeping it at level 2 and improving it, if only because most parties probably aren't going to encounter many spellcasting enemies in their first couple of levels due to how dangerous those enemies are. Someone with a counterspell cantrip would probably be sitting on it quite a while before it actually saw use; not to mention that counterspell would be much more specific in its usefulness than the rest of the cantrips, which are much more generally useful.
Isnt a power that could catch lightning and send it back worthy of more than a cantrip? It should be metamagic independant of spell like the parry you compare it with.
I agree that Counterspell as it stands is rather worthless. I think I would lean more towards keeping it at level 2 and improving it, if only because most parties probably aren't going to encounter many spellcasting enemies in their first couple of levels due to how dangerous those enemies are. Someone with a counterspell cantrip would probably be sitting on it quite a while before it actually saw use; not to mention that counterspell would be much more specific in its usefulness than the rest of the cantrips, which are much more generally useful.



But how much would you need to improve it to make it worth tying up a slot so you can negate a single spell attack?


I just can't see any way to make it worth a slot unless it can be made into an ongoing effect that lets you attempt to "parry" all spells cast in the next minute.

Maybe if it didn't cost an action and was guaranteed to succeed - then at least you might memorize it once in a blue moon when you knew you were going to face something with a really awesome SoD spell you had to stop.  But does that really happen enough to be worth it?


And even if it did - I'm not sure it's worth a slot.


On the other hand - if it's a cantrip - it's always available if you want to use it (costs an action - maybe, and works around half the time).


And you can run into spellcasters at any level.  There were some in the caves of chaos even.

Carl          


         
I think removing the action cost would be a step in the right direction. If it's not worth temporarily devoting a single spell slot to, do you really want to permanently devote one of three cantrip choices to it instead of something frequently useful like detect magic, magic missile, or mage hand?
I think removing the action cost would be a step in the right direction. If it's not worth temporarily devoting a single spell slot to, do you really want to permanently devote one of three cantrip choices to it instead of something frequently useful like detect magic, magic missile, or mage hand?




Perhaps - but it probably is worth devoting one of six slots to if you are a high elf magic user....

I don't mind hard choces - as long as the outcome of the choice is useful. 

Otherwise, the implication of this argument is that "they shoudn't add any more good cantrips to the game because the players already have as many good cantrips as they can learn".  And I'm pretty sure I'd disagree with that.

So, yes - this might change it from a spell no one ever takes to a cantrip the non-MU wizards never (rarely) take.  But at least when they do take it, it will be worth having.


Carl
Perhaps - but it probably is worth devoting one of six slots to if you are a high elf magic user....

I don't mind hard choces - as long as the outcome of the choice is useful. 

Otherwise, the implication of this argument is that "they shoudn't add any more good cantrips to the game because the players already have as many good cantrips as they can learn".  And I'm pretty sure I'd disagree with that.

So, yes - this might change it from a spell no one ever takes to a cantrip the non-MU wizards never (rarely) take.  But at least when they do take it, it will be worth having.


Carl

My point was not so much that "they shouldn't add any more good cantrips," I would disgree with that assertion too. Rather it seems to me that it makes more sense to design cantrips as effects you could reasonably expect to use on a daily basis (and this appears to be what they are going for so far), and save the more situational effects for spell slots since you can prepare those based on what you expect to encounter on this day, as opposed to making a cantrip for any magical effect which is too weak to merit a full spell slot. To be perfectly explicit: I think any cantrip should be designed to be both useful on a day to day basis and too weak to merit spending a level 1 spell slot on.

From my perspective, the problem with the current counterspell is not that the wizard doesn't have access to it whenever he might need it, but that the effect is too weak to consider spending a spell slot on. Perhaps remove the action penalty and it isn't expended if it is unsuccessful (regardless of the spell level the wizard was trying to counter)? That way the wizard doesn't have to worry about it being a complete waste, but there's still the chance that he will fail to counter that particular spell that he doesn't want to see succeed.

EDIT: I'm also concerned about the balance implications of allowing an at-will use ability that can shut down daily use abilities. 
Counterspell is a great example of how spells could advance in higher spell slots. If the devs go in that direction then it might always counter a spell of its level or higher and require a normal save on any spell above its prepared slot. This would reward the Wizard for using their different level spell slots and provide a little more utility.

Another idea would be to turn it into a Wizard Class ability (like a Cantrip). Wizards can use their reactions to counter spells, always. That would likely get out of hand.
I'm of the mind that Counterspell needs to be a Wizard Class feature, (ala parry), not a spell. Something like you have the ability as a reaction, (because your reacting to a spellcaster) to attempt to counter a spell being cast within 60, or so, feet. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster’s. If you win, the caster’s spell has no effect.
Personally, think that would be a better use of the ability than as a spell. This fits my idea of a spell-dual with Wizards casting and countering in turn.
My 2cp.
 
I'm of the mind that Counterspell needs to be a Wizard Class feature, (ala parry), not a spell. Something like you have the ability as a reaction, (because your reacting to a spellcaster) to attempt to counter a spell being cast within 60, or so, feet. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster’s. If you win, the caster’s spell has no effect.
Personally, think that would be a better use of the ability than as a spell. This fits my idea of a spell-dual with Wizards casting and countering in turn.
My 2cp.
 

I like the idea of trying to emulate Wizard's duels so that an encounter between rival wizards becomes something more interesting than the usual tactic of throwing damaging/debuff spells at the problem until something sticks. I just get apprehensive about an infinite use resource counter a daily resource. As a Wizard, your daily spells are practically all you've got, is it really fun to have an enemy with an even chance of nullifying them every turn? Is it balanced for the Wizard to have a shot at nullfying every spellcasting enemy he encounters all day every day?
I'm of the mind that Counterspell needs to be a Wizard Class feature, (ala parry), not a spell. Something like you have the ability as a reaction, (because your reacting to a spellcaster) to attempt to counter a spell being cast within 60, or so, feet. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster’s. If you win, the caster’s spell has no effect.
Personally, think that would be a better use of the ability than as a spell. This fits my idea of a spell-dual with Wizards casting and countering in turn.
My 2cp.
 



I'd be fine with this as well.  And it solves the problem of taking valuable cantrip slots away.

I'd even be OK if it was a higher-than-first-level class feature.

I just don't see it being worth a spell slot.

Note:  I mentioned this in another thread, but it needs to be here as well:  I also think that - if the spell does become an at-will ability (whether class feature or cantrip) it should specify that it only can be used on spells that either target the wizard directly or include the wizard's space.  I don't think the wizard should be countering (for example) the defensive or healing spells of their opponents.  You can't 'parry' an attack not aimed at you.

Carl
I'm of the mind that Counterspell needs to be a Wizard Class feature, (ala parry), not a spell. Something like you have the ability as a reaction, (because your reacting to a spellcaster) to attempt to counter a spell being cast within 60, or so, feet. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster’s. If you win, the caster’s spell has no effect.
Personally, think that would be a better use of the ability than as a spell. This fits my idea of a spell-dual with Wizards casting and countering in turn.
My 2cp.
 



I'd be fine with this as well.  And it solves the problem of taking valuable cantrip slots away.

I'd even be OK if it was a higher-than-first-level class feature.

I just don't see it being worth a spell slot.

Note:  I mentioned this in another thread, but it needs to be here as well:  I also think that - if the spell does become an at-will ability (whether class feature or cantrip) it should specify that it only can be used on spells that either target the wizard directly or include the wizard's space.  I don't think the wizard should be countering (for example) the defensive or healing spells of their opponents.  You can't 'parry' an attack not aimed at you.

Carl


I completely agree that it should be treated like parry in that it can only be used on spells that target you. However, at later levels there should be an advanced version to counter the AoE spells as well, or something based around the Traditions they have been talking about.
In 3.x you could just ready an action with Dispel Magic (or Greater Dispel Magic, or similar spells) and make a Dispel check to try to counter the spell. 
A Dispel check was  (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10 for Dispel Magic or +20 for Greater Dispel Magic)

In D&D Next they broke up Dispel Magic and made it simpler by cutting away the counterspell part and making it a new spell of lower level.

You could also counterspell by casting the same spell if you knew it (and had to make a check to understand which spell was cast)

Now it's pretty straightforward and I like how it works...doesn't even take an action, you could counterspell AND cast in the same round!
...but honestly I would never prepare it unless in very specific situations... I'd rather have Dispel Magic as it was in 3.x, much more versatile.

To be a class feature, you should be limiting it. With a 2nd spell slot you can only counterspell spells of 3rd level or lower (the enemy consider it cast) or prevent other spells (even a 10level spell!) from working, with just spell of 2nd level.

I'd make it this way. I wouldn't give it at 1st level, otherwise it would be too easy for non-caster multiclass characters to hinder ALL spells by just taking a level of Wizard.

Level 3: Counterspell (class feature): By preparing an action, you can target a spell cast whithin 50 feet of you. You and the caster make opposed spell attacks (1d20+magic attack bonus+magic ability modifier). If you win, the caster's spell fails but is not expended.
Level 6: Improved Counterspell (class feature): just before making a counterspell check to prevent someone from casting or to resist a counterspell, you may consume a spell slot to gain a bonus on the check equal to the level of the expended slot.
Level 12: Superior Counterspell (class feature): when you use the counterspell class feature you may expend a spell slot before making the check. If you win and the level of the slot you used was equal or higher than the spell you tried to counter, the enemy also expendes the slot. If you fail, you get +4 bonus on counterspelling checks for 1 minute.
Level 15: Counterspell Mastery (class feature): when you ready an action to counterspell or win a check against counterspelling you may also use a reaction to counter another spell cast before the end of your next round. 

Well, I only need level 1, 9 and 18 and it's almost a specialty :D (maybe +1, +2, +3 to the check?)

Mindstorming and ideas on how to tweak the Wizard class (hp, AC, class features):
[And so, you chose to be a wizard...]

What about making a failed counterspell more dangerous?
There has got to be some sparks flying when you try to counter a lightning bolt.

Then it would be a bit more even if the counterspell was more likely to work or a class feature.
@Drahiricomadus, I like your proposal. 

What if a successful use does minimal damage the wizard countering the spell? Like they are absorbing the spell's power and it weakens them each time. This should encourage players to reserve it for emergencies.

Also, make it so they can only counter spells cast on allies. If an evil mage transforms himself into a crow or empowers his skeletal horde I don't think that kind of spell should be countered. But if the mage uses an attack spell or tries to control an ally's mind then the wizard can sense that something in their arcane aura is changing, or some such. The wizard in attuned to his allies normal levels of magic/non-magic.

Or "Damage that cannot be reduced in any way." to the Wizard counterpspelling equal to the Spell Slot counterspelled....just tossing it out there.
Or "Damage that cannot be reduced in any way." to the Wizard counterpspelling equal to the Spell Slot counterspelled....just tossing it out there.


Nice idea. Maybe which ever is higher?
 Bring back metamagic. Counterspell could be a prereq for spell reversal.
Is this way out of league for the Magic User specialty? I feel like this would be better than Find Familiar, since it would be cool for a Magic User Priest or Magic User Fighter to be able to counter spell rather than have a rat running around them.
I'm of the mind that Counterspell needs to be a Wizard Class feature, (ala parry), not a spell. Something like you have the ability as a reaction, (because your reacting to a spellcaster) to attempt to counter a spell being cast within 60, or so, feet.

I certainly hope that anyone who thinks the Fighter's CS dice are "too plot couponish" because you can parry as a reaction, also objects to this.

Because otherwise they are simply saying "Fighters can't have nice things".

(Note: I am not one of those people.)

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I'm of the mind that Counterspell needs to be a Wizard Class feature, (ala parry), not a spell. Something like you have the ability as a reaction, (because your reacting to a spellcaster) to attempt to counter a spell being cast within 60, or so, feet.

I certainly hope that anyone who thinks the Fighter's CS dice are "too plot couponish" because you can parry as a reaction, also objects to this.

Because otherwise they are simply saying "Fighters can't have nice things".

(Note: I am not one of those people.)




Agreed. Though I think Counterspell is fine for the most part, I wouldn't object it being a class feature of the Wizard class or even moved to an Encounter spell for Abjurer specialists. The problem I have is with the last clause, losing your next action if the spell is 4th level or higher. I mean, currently there isn't a way to determine spell level while Counterspelling (unless DM fiats a Magical Lore check mid Counterspell) and being forced to lose your whole next action is rather.......crappy.
I like the idea of religious believer PC who prays to do counterspell, the power of faith againts the arcane arts. Do you rebember the prestige class "the occult slayer"from the complete warrior?

It could be a at-will power to cancel magic at-will powers... but counterspelling daily powers can be more delicate. Players with spellcasters PCs don´t like enemies with counterspell features when they had reserved the daily spells to defeat the dungeon boss. A counterspell can break a good combo. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Would it be more interesting, and also destroy any coupon, if the character only knows that an enemy appears to be casting a spell. Then they have to use their Arcane/Divine knowledge to try and identify it to see if they want counter. They roll and the DM tells them their best guess and they don't know for sure if they are right or not unless they rolled 20. Then the counterspell reaction takes place if they choose. Only one counterspell per round and they can not use any other reaction abilities this round.

Does this make it more fun and strategic or is it just more steps and slowing down the game?

P.S. I don't believe in the coupon theory either. 
I'm of the mind that Counterspell needs to be a Wizard Class feature, (ala parry), not a spell. Something like you have the ability as a reaction, (because your reacting to a spellcaster) to attempt to counter a spell being cast within 60, or so, feet.

I certainly hope that anyone who thinks the Fighter's CS dice are "too plot couponish" because you can parry as a reaction, also objects to this.

Because otherwise they are simply saying "Fighters can't have nice things".

(Note: I am not one of those people.)




Actually - no.  And that shows, imho, a misunderstanding of the 'plot couponish' point.

(Note; I am also not one of those people.)

But the reason Parry is somewhat plot couponish has nothing to do with the fact that it can be done as a reaction (except in so far as the reaction itself is).  It is the fact that, having done it as a reaction, the fighter has now forgotten how to make any of a number of other attacks until the plot-coupon refreshes at the start of their next turn.

What makes it plot couponish is the use of a metagame construct (the expertise die) to regulate it. 

I just don't think that it is plot couponish enough to make it a problem.

Carl
Is this way out of league for the Magic User specialty? I feel like this would be better than Find Familiar, since it would be cool for a Magic User Priest or Magic User Fighter to be able to counter spell rather than have a rat running around them.




I don't object to magic users having it  - but I would object to only magic user specialty having it.

I think it solidly belongs in the realm of the full time wizard, not a dabbler like the magic user specialty.

Carl
Well the Magic User Specialty is good for both the dabbler and the full time Wizard. I can see both a mage master of spells calmly deflecting a spell tossed his way and a Thief who was raised in a wizard's reaching into his background to remember how to turn the evil sorcerer's hex against him.

I think that this makes the Magic User specialty both allowing to build the swiss army mage (as opposed to Necromancer or Abjurer) and the Arcane schooled warrior or Rogue.
I don't think counterspell should be a spell at all. It should just be a type of action that any spellcaster can take. For example:

Counterspell: As a reaction, you can attempt to counterspell a spell being cast by a creature within 50 feet of you. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster's. If you win, the spell has no effect. If you beat the caster's check result by 10 or more, you can reflect the spell back upon him, as if you had cast the spell and the original caster was the primary target. On your next turn, you cannot take an action.

To take this action, you must expend a prepared spell or unused spell slot of equal or higher level of the spell being countered or an equal number of Willpower points (you know how powerful the spell is once you choose to take this action). If you are a warlock, you can expend an unused favor instead, but only if your warlock level is at least twice the level of the spell being countered. If you don't have a powerful enough spell or enough Willpower points, you can't attempt to counter the spell, but you don't lose your next action.
I don't think counterspell should be a spell at all. It should just be a type of action that any spellcaster can take. For example:

Counterspell: As a reaction, you can attempt to counterspell a spell being cast by a creature within 50 feet of you. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster's. If you win, the spell has no effect. If you beat the caster's check result by 10 or more, you can reflect the spell back upon him, as if you had cast the spell and the original caster was the primary target. On your next turn, you cannot take an action.

To take this action, you must expend a prepared spell or unused spell slot of equal or higher level of the spell being countered or an equal number of Willpower points (you know how powerful the spell is once you choose to take this action). If you are a warlock, you can expend an unused favor instead, but only if your warlock level is at least twice the level of the spell being countered. If you don't have a powerful enough spell or enough Willpower points, you can't attempt to counter the spell, but you don't lose your next action.




I think you are conflating two ideas - the Parry and the Riposte.  I'd separate them:


You can parry (Counter the spell) as a class feature.  It has a roll to determine whether or not it succeeds.    Doing this is a reaction, but it does not cost you your next action.


If you are successfull and if the spell is a single target spell directed at you you can reflect the spell back at the caster.   Doing so would require you to burn a memorized spell of at least the same level as the spell you are attempting to reflect back at the caster (countering a cantrip costs nothing, countering a L3 spell means you lose one of your L3 spells, if you don't have any spells of the right level - or higher -you can't reflect the spell) and costs you your next action.


Carl           
I don't think counterspell should be a spell at all. It should just be a type of action that any spellcaster can take. For example:

Counterspell: As a reaction, you can attempt to counterspell a spell being cast by a creature within 50 feet of you. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster's. If you win, the spell has no effect. If you beat the caster's check result by 10 or more, you can reflect the spell back upon him, as if you had cast the spell and the original caster was the primary target. On your next turn, you cannot take an action.

To take this action, you must expend a prepared spell or unused spell slot of equal or higher level of the spell being countered or an equal number of Willpower points (you know how powerful the spell is once you choose to take this action). If you are a warlock, you can expend an unused favor instead, but only if your warlock level is at least twice the level of the spell being countered. If you don't have a powerful enough spell or enough Willpower points, you can't attempt to counter the spell, but you don't lose your next action.




I think you are conflating two ideas - the Parry and the Riposte.  I'd separate them:


You can parry (Counter the spell) as a class feature.  It has a roll to determine whether or not it succeeds.    Doing this is a reaction, but it does not cost you your next action.


If you are successfull and if the spell is a single target spell directed at you you can reflect the spell back at the caster.   Doing so would require you to burn a memorized spell of at least the same level as the spell you are attempting to reflect back at the caster (countering a cantrip costs nothing, countering a L3 spell means you lose one of your L3 spells, if you don't have any spells of the right level - or higher -you can't reflect the spell) and costs you your next action.


Carl           




I think I like this better, though I'm on the fence about the ability to counter a daily power everytime. If I had to lose willpower or a spell to counter something I probably wouldn't do it, especially if I had no idea what it was I was countering. Even reflecting I feel you should be told what the spell is and what you would have to burn to reflect it. After all (if countering is "free") I'm much more willing to counter Hold Person than reflect it and lose my acid arrow or arc lightning. Hold person is good and all, but not something I'd sacrifice to hit an opponent with. But if I'm reflecting Inflict Moderate Wounds I'm more than willing to make the sacrifice... and no I have no idea why I'm talking cleric vs wizard here, that's just what I grabbed from the lists.

Actually, have we discussed if there will be any difference in the rules for "Arcane vs Arcane" and "Arcane vs Divine or Primal (if they add it)"?
Is this way out of league for the Magic User specialty? I feel like this would be better than Find Familiar, since it would be cool for a Magic User Priest or Magic User Fighter to be able to counter spell rather than have a rat running around them.




I don't object to magic users having it  - but I would object to only magic user specialty having it.

I think it solidly belongs in the realm of the full time wizard, not a dabbler like the magic user specialty.

Carl



Totally agree. The Magic User specialty should give you a glimpse of spellcasting, not giving you class features the iconic spellcasters can't live without (thus limiting their choice).
I think the Counterspell should take into account the total attack modifier (base magic attack + magic modifier), so true spellcaster's spells are more potent and are less likely to be deflected by multiclass characters or anone else.

Well the Magic User Specialty is good for both the dabbler and the full time Wizard. I can see both a mage master of spells calmly deflecting a spell tossed his way and a Thief who was raised in a wizard's reaching into his background to remember how to turn the evil sorcerer's hex against him.

I think that this makes the Magic User specialty both allowing to build the swiss army mage (as opposed to Necromancer or Abjurer) and the Arcane schooled warrior or Rogue.


Non casters deflecting at will non-at will spells cast by true casters would be somehow difficult to balance.
Maybe an Abjurer could do this. But a thief/fighter/barbarian able to counterspell should never, ever be as skilled as a wizard or an Abjurer in doing it. And shouldn't do it at will unless knowing they have less than 50% chance of succeeding (giving up the saving throw against the spell if they fail?).

Counterspell was a spell in the wizard spell list, and clerics already have Sanctuary, Shield of Faith (once they had Spell Resistance as well) that already do the job in protecting the god disciples.

Spell Reflection is a bit tricky, once it was a spell itself, I can see a wizard tradition *abjurer* to have class features like that.

Would it be more interesting, and also destroy any coupon, if the character only knows that an enemy appears to be casting a spell. Then they have to use their Arcane/Divine knowledge to try and identify it to see if they want counter. They roll and the DM tells them their best guess and they don't know for sure if they are right or not unless they rolled 20. Then the counterspell reaction takes place if they choose. Only one counterspell per round and they can not use any other reaction abilities this round.

Does this make it more fun and strategic or is it just more steps and slowing down the game?

P.S. I don't believe in the coupon theory either. 


That's more or less as it worked in 3.x and sometime it was a bit slow IMHO. The new mechanic is less precise but more fluid and in line with the other D&D Next mechanics.

Mindstorming and ideas on how to tweak the Wizard class (hp, AC, class features):
[And so, you chose to be a wizard...]

I will agree that counterspell feels a little weak. I kind of like the idea of making it a cantrip, but you'd have to decrease it's effect to like disadvantage on attack roll or advantage on save.

On the subject of making it a reaction, it seems kind of gamey to me. A wizard's spells are supposed to be formulaic and very deliberate. It seems difficult for me to imagine a wizard just being able to turn around and shout out a spell in time to intterupt someone else's spell that is already cast/being cast. Readied actions make sense, reactions do not :P Swinging a sword is one thing, but spells are supposed to require more concentration.
My two copper.
The only problem of Readied Action to Counterspell is that I've never seen a player use it. As a DM I think I've used one or two times, mainly because I planned it based on a caster's general course of action. I prefer to use the spell that is the counter to what they normally use.
This is mainly because of such a cumbersome mechanic. 
I will agree that counterspell feels a little weak. I kind of like the idea of making it a cantrip, but you'd have to decrease it's effect to like disadvantage on attack roll or advantage on save.

On the subject of making it a reaction, it seems kind of gamey to me. A wizard's spells are supposed to be formulaic and very deliberate. It seems difficult for me to imagine a wizard just being able to turn around and shout out a spell in time to intterupt someone else's spell that is already cast/being cast. Readied actions make sense, reactions do not :P Swinging a sword is one thing, but spells are supposed to require more concentration.



buut its not just flung out, it still takes the same amount of time, this is why it takes your next action. being a reaction is merely to show you can do it on someone elses turn
Sign In to post comments