|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 10:20AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 11:10AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
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"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 12:29PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 2:47PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 2:49PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:19PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 23, 2012 - 9:17PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 2:27AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 9:05AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
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)"?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 9:22AM
#30
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
