|
10 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 12:06AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 8:01AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 8:02AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 9:03AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 10:31AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
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?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 10:55AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 11:13AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 10:23AM
#8
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 12:31PM
#9
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 5:19PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
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?
|
|
|
