|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 7, 2004 14:57:26 GMT -6
I guess we can continue our discussion of WD's here.
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 8, 2004 6:04:12 GMT -6
The range for Dispell magic is medium (100+10/level) so that's quite a ways out for nival.
What if you're doing a targeted dispell with the same spell or the spells oposite. I guess the level check is enough for this.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 8, 2004 8:45:52 GMT -6
I'll have to get my original Word document at home for perusal but to bring everyone up to speed, the proposed house rule for Counterspelling is:
A caster (arcane or divine) may attempt a Counterspell once a round as an Immediate action instead of having to ready an action. The sequence is thus: 1. Initial caster declares intent to cast a spell. 2. Caster(s) 2 (thru whatever) makes an immediate Spellcraft check to identify the spell. 3. If Spellcraft check is successful, Caster(s) 2 (thru whatever) may attempt to counter the spell as an Immediate action in the same way described in the PHB - use of the same spell or dispel magic. Initiative counts. Note: If multiple allied casters identify the initial spell, they must ALL declare intent to counterspell before initial counterspell attempt is attempted. For example, if Aislyn and Nival identify a spell and declare intent to counterspell it, and Aislyn succeeds in countering the spell, the Nival still expends his counterspell.
I think that about covers it...
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 8, 2004 8:59:22 GMT -6
For the record, Dispell magic doesn't require you to know the spell you're dispelling
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 8, 2004 9:08:41 GMT -6
Right. Forgot that bit. SOOO, the player makes the initial Spellcraft check and, if they make it, they can counterspell it as normal but, if they fail the Spellcraft check, can still attempt to counter the spell using dispel magic if they have it slotted or memorized or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 9, 2004 9:05:39 GMT -6
Would a quickened spell allow you to dispell multiple spells.
Could you cast a defensive spell instead of a dispell?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 9, 2004 10:02:24 GMT -6
Hmmm...good questions.
In the Complete Arcane, they added two new kinds of actions: Immediate and Swift. Since I don't have the book with me, I'll have to quote this from memory.
Immediate actions can be taken at any time, even when it isn't your turn (initiative) so, in this case, our counterspell would classify as such an action as would casting feather fall.
Swift actions are basically free actions that require a little more concentration or power than shouting "Duck!" or the equivalent. There were some examples in the CA but I don't recall them.
It did say that you could only have a single Immediate action a round (or maybe it was a Swift); I'll have to grab the book at lunch and check.
Now, as to the defensive spell being cast instead of countering a spell, I honestly have no idea and would have to go with whatever the consensus is. I'm initially leaning toward saying "no" because I'm concerned it would overpower casters even more.
The way I see the countering is thus:
1. Caster 1 begins casting Spell. 2. As Caster 1 begins shaping the magic to do his bidding, Caster 2 listens to his words, his action, etc. and deduces what C1 is casting. 3. Heartbeats after C1 begins casting Spell, C2 begins casting the counter. It is only due to C2's intuitive grasp of magic that he is able to react as quickly as he does.
Another ancillary point is the number of counters. Should we create a feat that works like Combat Reflexes except for counterspelling? Something like:
Combat Counterspelling. Prerequisites:TBD. Benefit: You can counter multiple spells in the same round. Effect: You can counter a number of spells a round equal to 1 + your primary casting attribute (Int, Wis, or Cha). Normal: You can only counter a single spell a round.
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 9, 2004 10:08:01 GMT -6
Maybe counterspelling w/o readying an action should become a feat itself. Like power attack.
Counterspelling Combat counterspelling (Like combat reflexes) Counterspelling Repost (Very High level)
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 9, 2004 10:48:11 GMT -6
Valid points. With the inclusion of the previous counterspelling idea, casters do appear to get TWO spells off a round.
Going with the feat idea we could make the feat tree look something like this:
Counterspell. You can make a counterspell attempt as an Immediate action instead of using a Readied action.
Improved Counterspell. As per the PHB.
Combat Counterspell. Pre: Counterspell, Improved Counterspell. You can make multiple counterspells equal to 1 + Primary Caster Attribute in a round.
Not sure about the Counterspell Riposte; that seems like it would be too much like spell turning. You do mean being able to counter a spell and reflect it at the initial caster, right? What would be the prereqs? That would need to be really high...
As it stands, the above tree (minus Riposte) would mean a normal caster wouldn't be able to get Combat Counterspell until at least 6th level.
Also, I think these should be WIZARD bonus feats. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 9, 2004 11:29:36 GMT -6
You're right. Repost is too much like spell turning. No need really.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 9, 2004 13:02:19 GMT -6
What about the rest of it (minus riposte)?
Is anyone else reading this aside from Mike and I?
|
|
|
Post by Saarus on Dec 9, 2004 16:15:22 GMT -6
I am, and it's quite interesting... and I have something to add that you may or may not dig, but it's worth considering.
First, I don't think you should allow multiple counterspells for a single caster under any cicumstances unless they are a deity's avatar or something.
Second, what about something like a caster's circle, where, say N casters declare a full-round action sometime after initiative is rolled, and one person leads the circle.
These casters cast their spells individually, but, say they are facing a single high-level caster - the leader of the circle can direct the counterspelling efforts of all additional casters. The net effect would be to add N-1 (one for each caster beyond the leader) additional caster levels to the circle leader wherever it matters in regards to dispel magic or counterspell.
In order to keep this somewhat balanced, I suggest that each said caster in the circle must be within, say, 4 squares of one other caster in the circle (so you could set up battle lines and stuff), and that if they decide to pool their efforts, a single group counterspell counts as everyone's attempt for that round. However, if a single caster decides not to contribute to the pool, the group may not counterspell as one that time, but it doesn't break the circle, it just means that the circle leader doesn't get the benefits of the group.
So all players would have to announce that they are contributing their magical might to the leader's attempts to counterspell, otherwise the leader doesn't get the benefits of the circle that round.
This all might be totally unnecessary if you never have groups of casters working together against the PCs or they never need to use it, but the possibilities are intriguing. And bear in mind that this is all off the top of my head as I'm writing this message, so it's probably wrong, but it seems neat.
You could spiff it up with all sorts of visual effects that let whoever's watching know that you've got a circle going on.
ALTERNATIVELY, Nival could devise a spell that has the same net effect as the rules system I described above, but with a finite duration. And, probably slightly different rules, i.e. duration could be concentration, or for 10 min/lvl and if the caster is hit, all members must make a Concentration check and those who fail are ejected from the circle. If the leader fails, ALL members are ejected. You could even make people who are ejected in such a manner make a Fort check or pass out for a bit, but that might be overkill...maybe just stunned and unable to take anything but free actions for a round.
Anyway, just my $.02.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 10, 2004 8:31:19 GMT -6
Re: multiple counterspells. Why not?
Re: circles. There is a feat in CA called Cooperative Spell (a requirement for the Mage of the Arcane Order) which would probably have to be a requirement for the circles as you describe them.
I like the idea of multiple casters "linking" but haven't really thought about it much. Clearly, in your example, they are all facing one serious Bad Ass, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 10, 2004 8:45:51 GMT -6
Ok, so we have a feat requirement, and that allows one spell and one counterspell per round. Is that a good sum-up?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 10, 2004 9:24:27 GMT -6
That sounds about right. At least for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 10, 2004 9:31:11 GMT -6
Ok...the actuall numbers for CS is already in the books, and we kinda know what to do if it comes up. Let's try it next time.
Also, would it be a full round action? If I cast a normal spell, I can still move. If I cast a spell, and am dueling, wouldn't my move be cut to 5'/rd. Make it like Dodge that way where you have to declare that you are dueling.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 10, 2004 9:46:08 GMT -6
Can't. You don't have the necessary feat. ;D I do like the idea of it forcing the caster to a 5' step. Yeah...Not so sure about having to force a caster to declare that he dueling although I do see the point...
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Dec 10, 2004 10:05:07 GMT -6
Well, it's just an idea. Like ok, I'm tring to duel this guy, wether he want's to duel me or not. Could you as a single caster, if you had the proper feats, duel multiple casters.
|
|
|
Post by Saarus on Dec 13, 2004 12:08:02 GMT -6
Multiple counterspells - just seemed like a little too much coolness for one caster. Unless there's already a rule that covers it. It also seemed to me that linking would be more attractive if you only get one counterspell. Individual members could drop out and counterspell if they want to and, if there are enough linked members, the leader of the circle could keep at least some of the counterspelling bonus.
Oh, and yeah in the example, they are facing a Serious Badass, or at least another linked group of casters. I kept thinking of the cleansing of the Taint when I was coming up with it.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 13, 2004 13:12:15 GMT -6
I kept thinking of the cleansing of the Taint when I was coming up with it. I have been heavily influenced by the Jordan stuff when it comes to magic hence my dislike for the current counterspelling system in place for D&D. There is no good mechanic for two casters to go at one another like, say...Rand and Rahvin do. No way to cast, parry, cast, etc. Hmmm...you know, for the multiple counterspelling thing that could be an option for the Archmage's "High Arcana" SQ. Like the rest, he'd lose a permanent spell slot (no idea how high) but gain a really kick ass SQ...
|
|
|
Post by Saarus on Dec 17, 2004 10:57:27 GMT -6
Actually that woudl be a really cool ability.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 4, 2005 8:50:05 GMT -6
OK, as it stands, I think we're going to use the following house rule in regards to Counterspelling (at least in my game):
1. Counterspelling is done as per rules in PHB. (Requires a readied action, Spellcraft check, etc.)
2. Casting characters may pick up the Counterspell feat at any point in their career in which a feat is available. This is also a Wizard bonus feat. This feat allows the character to make a counterspell attempt as an Immediate action instead of a Readied action but counts as a Move equivalent action for his next action.
3. An Archmage may select Mastery of Counterspell as a High Arcana; this allows him to make a number of counterspells equal to 1 + his primary attribute (usually Intelligence).
4. Multiple characters with the Cooperative Spell feat may link (mechanics still to be determined) to provide additional counterspelling benefits.
Did I miss anything?
|
|
|
Post by Saarus on Apr 20, 2005 8:31:28 GMT -6
Again, maybe this should be in Rigil's game forum? Or maybe delete and repost with the text in the post above?
Man am I anal or what?
|
|