A Defensive Caster

[Shatner]

In anticipation of my next campaign I have been reworking the wizard class to be a little more in line with a few threads I've read around here and Paizo. Namely, I'm ripping off clerics and giving each specialist a few domain-like powers and access to thematic spells sooner. While I am happy with my results in general, I'm unsure about my retooling of the abjuration specialist. Have I taken it too far or not too far enough?

Abjurer - protective specialist, counters magic and extraplanar creatures
Special Power 1) proficiency with all armor and shields, doesn't suffer arcane spell failure, starts with the Improved Counterspell feat
Special Power 2) gains spell resistance 11 + caster level, counts as five caster levels higher when making dispel checks

The following spells are treated as abjuration spells on the Abjurer's spell list at the levels given. They don't know them by default but can learn them in the normal way (leveling up, inscribing them into their spellbook). They are not available to non-abjurers unless they could cast that spell normally. So, a evocation-specialized wizard couldn't copy "Spell Resistance" out of the spellbook of an abjurer because it doesn't appear on their list. He could copy "Greater Dispel Magic" because that is a normal Wizard/Sorcerer spell BUT it would be a 6th level spell for the evocationist, not a 1st level spell like it is for the abjurer. Abjurers can copy spells like usual between them. Note that I'm not really worried about non-specialists getting access to specialist spells early, I'm mainly concerned with whether the specialization would work at it's intended purpose.

0th - Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos
1st - Greater Dispel Magic, Magic Circle against Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, Protection from Energy
2nd - Dismissal, Lesser Globe of Invulnerablility, Dimensional Anchor
3rd - Break Enchantment, Spell Immunity, Freedom of Movement
4th - Globe of Invulnerablility, Spell Resistance, Dispel Good/Evil/Law/Chaos
5th - Banishment, Spell Turning, Antimagic Field
I haven't bothered with higher level spells because the campaign probably isn't going to go any higher.

My spiel to my players:
Generally speaking, defense is a fools game in DnD. Rather than spending actions immunizing yourself and your party members against an opponent's attacks it's often more expedient to contribute to killing said foe sooner; then everyone is safe. Well, you can be successful on defense, you just have to be REALLY FREAKIN' GOOD at it. And an abjurer is.

Wizards are generally easy to spot; just look for an air of authority from someone who isn't more heavily armed or armored than a peasant. Abjurers defy this convention by layering themselves in heavy armor, carrying mighty shields and sloughing off magic and blows like water. They can tap into spells four or more levels sooner than others (ten levels earlier in the case of Greater Dispel Magic) and use it to unbind the magic of others. The abjurers stand as a bulwark against denizens from other planes of existence as well as magic run amok. They tend to make all magic users around them nervous, despite or perhaps because abjurers are powerful magic users in their own right.

Also, does anyone know a good fix for the 3.5 counterspelling mechanic? As is, it sucks and you'd be better off readying a damage spell than trying to counter an opponent's magic. The Improved Counterspelling feat just gets you to waste a feat rather than making things any better.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Also, does anyone know a good fix for the 3.5 counterspelling mechanic? As is, it sucks and you'd be better off readying a damage spell than trying to counter an opponent's magic. The Improved Counterspelling feat just gets you to waste a feat rather than making things any better.

Counterspelling should be, at most, a Swift action, and possibly a Free action. It's success should be resolved by a roll, and that roll should be modified by the appropriateness of the spell used to counterspell. My first thought is that the roll should be a opposed d20+caster level+casting stat mod roll.

[Surgo]

Here's a feat I made to try to fix the counterspell problem, and some related discussion:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=40084

On reflection, though, I'd merge ability at rank 9 with the ability at rank 4, move everything else down, and give a new ability at rank 19 (no idea what to give there though). I would also allow one to counterspell with a spell of a certain lower level (1 or 2, maybe?) or higher, so counterspelling isn't such a loss for the counterspeller.

[JonSetanta]

Rather than truly Defensive perhaps the class you have in mind would be more... hmm.. Proactive?

With the inclusion of prevention and interruption to the routines rather than just reacting to attacks, which might be the assumption for Defense types, one could assume that the class does have an Offensive role after all.

If the enemy can't 'do anything', the party is closer to winning.

Also, for style, why bother with shields? The Shield spell overrides most physical ones, and with a staff it just becomes ridiculous.
An armored mage, however, is very close to a (truly awesome) Urza-style spellcaster.

[Shatner]

angelfromanotherpin: I like your idea for counterspelling, in that you can counterspell with most any spell but it's effectiveness varies from how "appropriate" a counter to the spell is. I can envision something like "same school of magic: + 3 to dispel check, lower level spell: - the difference in spell levels, etc." Unfortunately, I could see that growing too complicated fast. I don't want to have to consult a table to counter a spell because my goal is to make counterspelling a commonly available option.

Sigma999: Proactive is good. That's actually one of the main reasons I want to make a better counterspell system, so the abjurer can be really good at shooting down developing spells. (Lesser) Globe of Invulnerability and Spell Resistance both seem pretty proactive to me. As far as the shield goes, I agree the Shield spell is better but it lasts minutes per level. Maybe I should make it a cantrip or a permanent effect? Not sure.


Here are my preconceptions for what I'd like the system to do:

- Counterspelling should be a viable tactic for every caster, regardless of their class or whether they have invested feats into counterspelling

- Casters of roughly equal power should be able to interfere with each other while still being able to do other things on their turn

- Characters who aren't invested in counterspelling should NOT be able to shut down another caster of comparative power, just inhibit them.

- A caster who is much higher level than another caster should be able to shut them down completely without wasting actions. A caster who is much lower level than another caster should have to expend their actions just to inhibit the superior caster.

- A character who IS invested in counterspelling should be able to shut down another caster of comparative power without wasting their actions.

- A group of mook casters working in unison should be able to shut down a superior caster (since PCs are expected to topple evil liches and diabolical clerics pretty regularly, having the party wizard and cleric shut down the BBEG seems pretty cool and useful)


Here's what I'm taking from that:

Counterspelling is a swift action. When you are attempting to counterspell someone you expend a spell, any spell. You then make a counterspell roll (d20 + your caster level + the level of the spell expended vs 11 + their caster level + the level of the spell they're casting). If you succeed by 5 or more than was needed, the enemy spell fizzles. If you succeed by less then that, your spell merely interferes with theirs. This reduces the DC of the spell by the following amount (which can never actually raise the spell's DC):

5 + (your caster level + the level of the spell you expended) - (enemy caster level + level of spell they were casting)

If a spell's DC is lowered by 11 or more, it fizzles instead.

Special Modifiers
- If you readied an action to counterspell than you get a +5 to your effective caster level when counterspelling.

- If you failed the spellcraft check to identify the spell then you aget a -5 to your effective caster level when counterspelling UNLESS you are using dispel magic/greater dispel magic to counterspell someone.

- If you used Greater Dispel Magic to counterspell then the spell fizzles when it would have been interfered with.

- Multiple casters can attempt to counterspell the same spell provided they have all readied an action to counter the same spellcaster. Their caster levels and expended spell levels are combined when making the single attempt but only the highest three contributions are combined (the rest are discarded). A character's caster level plus spell level can never lower the combined counterspell attempt.

- If multiple, independent attempts are made to counter a spell, only the most successful counterspelling result is used. For example, two casters try and counter the same spell (and they aren't combined in their attempt). The first one reduces the DC by 1, the second reduces the DC by 5. The result is that the spell's DC is lowered by 5 (the lesser result is ignored).

- if you have the Improved Counterspell feat then all your counterspell attempts are considered "readied" (increasing effective caster level by 5 and allowing them to freely combine counterspelling attempts with other, readied casters) and counterspelling is a free action instead of a swift action.


What this means
Example 1:
A 5th level, enemy wizard begins to cast "Deep Slumber", a 3rd level spell. The party wizard, also 5th level, correctly identifies the spell and expends their prepared "Fly" as a swift action. The party wizard has a +8 (5th level + 3rd level spell) to their counterspell roll and they need to make a 19+ to interfere with it. This means the party wizard has a 25% chance of interfering with the spell (reducing it's DC by 5 + (5 + 3) - (5 + 3) = 5) and a 25% chance of fizzling it.

Example 2:
Same scenario but the party cleric is going to aid the party wizard. He is 5th level and is expending a Magic Circle against Evil (3rd level). Unfortunately he fails at his spellcraft check so his effective caster level is reduced by 5. The wizard and cleric's combined counterspell modifier is (5 + 3 from the wizard) plus (5 + 3 - 5) from the cleric = +11. The party has a 25% chance of interfering with the spell (reducing the DC by eight) and a 40% chance of fizzling it. The party cleric could have expended a dispel magic to compensate for his poor spellcraft check in this case.

Example 3:
A 5th level wizard is facing three 1st level sorcerers. He goes to cast "Fireball" and the sorcerers all expend swift actions to counterspell. Each one expends a 1st level spell but only 1 succeeds on the DC 18 spellcraft check. The one that succeeded at the spellcraft check contributes +2 (CL 1 + 1st lvl spell) while the two that failed their spellcraft checks contribute nothing (CL 1 + 1st lvl spell - 5) because they can't actually lower the effective check. The sorcerers have a 15% chance of interfering with the spell (reducing the DC by 5 + (2 + 0 + 0) - 8 which actually means this counterspell attempt has no chance of accomplishing anything). NOTE that this example doesn't quite function as advertised because I changed combined counterspelling to require a readied action. See example 5b for the corrected version

Example 4:
Same as above but each sorcerer succeeds on their spellcraft check. That means their combined check is +6 meaning they have a 25% chance of interfering with the spell (reducing the DC by 5 + 6 - 8 = 3) and a 15% chance of fizzling the spell.
NOTE that this example doesn't quite function as advertised because I changed combined counterspelling to require a readied action. See example 5b for the corrected version

Example 5:
Same as example 4 only two of the sorcerers readied their actions to counterspell. The one who used a swift action to counterspell contributes +2. The ones who readied their actions each give a +7. Their combined check is +16 meaning they have only a 10% chance of failure, a 65% chance of fizzling the spell and a 25% chance of interfering with the spell (however, they would reduce the spell DC by 5 + 16 - 8 = 13 so the spell fizzles anyway). Presumably the sorcerer who didn't ready an action will start unleashing damage spells on the wizard while his two buddies focus on keeping the wizard ineffective.
NOTE that this example doesn't quite function as advertised because I changed combined counterspelling to require a readied action. See example 5b for the corrected version

Example 5b
Two of the sorcerers ready their actions to counterspell together, the other counterspells by himself as a swift action. We're assuming all pass their spellcraft checks. The sorcerers working in conjunction each contribute +7 (CL of 1 + Spell Lvl of 1 + readied bonus of 5) for a total of +14. The sorcerers need a 19+ to interfere with the spell giving them a 20% chance of failure, a 55% chance of fizzling the spell and a 25% chance of reducing the DC by 11 (5 + 14 - 8 = 11), causing the spell to fizzle anyway. The sorcerer casting on his own has a total of +2, making his counterspell attempt completely doomed. Presumably his two companions will continue to ready actions, preventing 4 of every 5 or so spells cast by the wizard while he shoots damage spells at the locked down wizard.

Example 6:
Just to make sure the mooks aren't too crazy. A 20th level wizard prepares to cast a 9th level spell while three 1st level wizards ready actions to counterspell. Assuming failure on the DC 24 spellcraft check they each contribute +2 (1 + 1 - 5 + 5) for a total of +6. They need a 40+ to inhibit the spell so they have no chance at all.

Example 7:
Same as example 6 but they all made their spellcraft checks (somehow). They each contribute +7 for a total of +21 vs 40. They have a 10% chance of lowering the save DC by (5 + 21 - 29) -2 which isn't legal so this dispel attempt is doomed also. Note that even if the mooks each had the Improved Counterspell feat, it wouldn't have made a difference.

Example 8:
A 10th level wizard with the improved counterspell feat expends a 0th level spell to obstruct a 5th level cleric from casting a 3rd level spell. The wizard has a +15 to his check and needs a 19+ to fizzle the spell (since an interference would lower the DC by (5 + 15 - 8 = 12) more than 10, fizzling the spell anyway). This means the counterspell wizard can freely fizzle his puny rival's mightiest spells 85% of the time with CANTRIPS!

Example 9:
An 9th level abjurer with the Improved Counterspelling feat is facing off against a 9th level cleric and a 9th level wizard. The cleric goes to cast "Slay Living" (5th level) while the wizard attempts to cast "Dominate Person" (also 5th level). The abjurer uses a "Greater Dispel Magic" casting against the cleric and a "Wall of Force" against the wizard as free actions (courtesy of his Improved Counterspelling feat). Against the cleric, the abjurer's effective counterspelling modifier is 9 (CL) + 1 (spell lvl) + 5 (improved counterspell) = 15. He needs a 25+ to interfere with the cleric's spell (cleric level 9 + spell lvl 5 + 11). This means a 55% chance of fizzling the spell (Greater Dispel Magic always fizzles when successful). Against the wizard, his modifier is +19 and he needs a 25+ to inhibit the spell. This gives him a 25% chance to interfere with the spell (lowering the DC by 5 + 19 - 14 = 10, not quite enough to fizzle the spell) and a 50% chance to fizzle the spell. While an impressive attempt, let's hope the Abjurer brought back up (and his spell resistance blocks the spells that get through) because the cleric and wizard can combine attempts to counter his spells and he'll run out of spells first in this 1 vs 2 duel.

- So, if two equal characters expend equal resources (spells of the same level) then there is a 25% chance of reducing the DC by 5 and a 25% chance of canceling the spell outright

- If two equal characters expend equal resources but the one counterspelling has Improved Counterspell then there is a 25% chance of reducing the DC by 10 and a 50% chance of cancelling the spell outright.

- A caster 5 levels higher can fizzle spells 100% of the time by expending a spell of the same level as his rival.

...and so on. What do you all think?

[angelfromanotherpin]

I like your idea for counterspelling, in that you can counterspell with most any spell but it's effectiveness varies from how "appropriate" a counter to the spell is. I can envision something like "same school of magic: + 3 to dispel check, lower level spell: - the difference in spell levels, etc." Unfortunately, I could see that growing too complicated fast. I don't want to have to consult a table to counter a spell because my goal is to make counterspelling a commonly available option.

No table required. It's just the sort of +2 circumstance bonus that people get all over the place for investing a little thought. For instance, Create Water seems like a good choice for canceling fire spells, so it'd have a +2 to do so. On the other hand, the specifically flammable Web would be a bad choice, so -2. The idea is that you're actually quick-casting the spell defensively, which means its utility is sharply limited, but also means that counterspelling a Flame Arrow with Create Water actually intercepts the arrow with a momentarily-conjured splash of liquid.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Personal Ward (Su): When activated a personal ward continuously grants an abjurer an armor bonus to AC equal to 3 + 1/2 her class level, rounded up. This is a force effect. At every even class level, she can add to her personal ward an abjuration spell she can cast with a level equal to 1/2 her class level - 1 (rounded down) or one of the effects listed below.

• Resistance: a resistance bonus to saving throws equal to 1/3 her character level.
• Energy resistance: resistance to some specific energy type equal to twice her character level.

This ward takes a form appropriate to the campaign and character. Some kind of glowing magic circle is pretty classic.

Greater personal ward (Su): Upon reaching 12th level an abjurer can choose from the following effects to add to her personal ward.

• Extend ward: the abjurer can expand her ward as a swift action to a cylinder with a diameter and height of twice her own.
• Gift of warding: the abjurer can cause her ward to be centered on some other creature as a move action.
• Exotic ward: the abjurer can add spell effects from one other school of magic to her ward, although such spells have a spell level of at most 1/2 her level -3. If the effect would would normally be harmful to the abjurer she is immune, within reason (yeah, rule ZERO bitches).

That might make for too specific a flavor for abjurers ('I cover my own ass'). It would work just as well with the abilities significantly lowered in number.

Caveat: I have no idea how unbalanced this could get.

[Shatner]

Having given it more thought and run some trials, I have a few counterspell concerns.

1) The Improved Counterspell Sorcerer is King
I have proposed methods for strengthening counterspelling; I haven't proposed any defenses against it. Therefore a character of the same caster level with the Improved Counterspell feat has a 75% chance of reducing or canceling your spell each and every time you cast without wasting an action of their own and there is nothing you can do about it except exhaust their spells or have your buddies beat him up. That's good, it's as designed but this actually strengthens the sorcerer because he can win a war of spell-slot attrition. I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad for this because on the one had sorcerer's suck and could use the boost. On the other hand, I'd feel pretty ticked if my wizard couldn't get more than half my spells cast (1/4 if they have Imp. Counterspell) anytime an encounter included a level-appropriate sorcerer. Again, design flaw or perk; what do you think?

2) Strength in Numbers
Assuming the iconic, 4 person-2 caster party you can pretty much guarantee that the wizard and the cleric are going to gang up whenever an enemy starts a-casting. Since my proposed system has options for increasing the success of counterspelling but nothing to increase the difficulty of having your spells counterspelled, the two-caster team is going to be hard to deny. And this will work in reverse as well with a group of enemy casters effortlessly squelching all the party's spells (assuming they're facing level appropriate foes). While I want a group of underdogs to be able to band together and thwart the uber-wizard's magical machinations, I don't quite want this. I'm changing combined counterspelling to only be possible when those doing the counterspelling have readied an action to cast (or have the Improved Counterspell feat since they are always "readied"). If multiple people try individually to squelch a spell, only the most significant success is noticed (if three casters individually try to counter a spell and the first one fails, the second one reduces the DC by 2 and the third one reduces the DC by 6, the net effect is the DC being reduced by 6)

3) Defensive Casting?
Should some provision be made to allow casters to steel their spells against counterspelling? Maybe they can take an extra standard action to cast their spell (meaning the spell would take two rounds to cast), giving the caster a +10 to their effective caster level to resist counterspelling. I'm not sure. I mean, if the party's Abjurer has forced the enemy caster to cast only once every other round out of fear of counterspelling then they've already succeeded. Again, thoughts?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Shatner,

I'm not going to say anything about the objective balance of your proposed system. Subjectively, however, the core of your idea is unfun to me, and I would wager it to be unfun for most players.

Counterspelling fundamentally is about removing another's actions; another's effects. In other words, counterspelling is about nullifying fantastic, supernatural awesome effects.

I would much rather play a game where spell* effects are not countered by preventing them from occurring, but rather where different effects are layered onto the battlefield, and new tactics emerge.

Otherwise, the end point of a counterspelling system is one where very little occurs. That is why counterspelling should suck. If Greater Dispelling was a first level spell (like Frank suggests) that would be fine. You would have a 50% chance of trading your action to nullify the actions of another equal spellcaster. Counterspelling shouldn't be the norm, it should be a last ditch effort where you desperately need to trade your action for a 50% chance to remove another's actions.

*(or other special abilities of a character)

[Shatner]

While I see your points, I disagree with several of them.

My primary goal was to make counterspelling an option you could consider and not be objectively stupider for it. As written you are always better readying an action to blast someone rather than readying to counter someone. That's a flaw; a glaring one that I'd like to see corrected.

Beyond that, the act of trading your action for a 50% chance of disrupting someone else's action is, in general, a stupid trade to make. It only pays off if your opponent is doing something MASSIVELY more significant than anything you could do with your action. However, an opponent can't be doing anything massively more powerful than you unless they're a higher level caster than you in which case you don't even have a 50% chance of stopping them. The odds of success are inversely proportionate with the threat which means that as the need for you to counterspell someone rises, the chances of it working fall and vice versa. Therefore there is no sweet spot, no justified scenario in which counterspelling is the best, or even a very good strategic option.

My secondary goal was to allow casters to get in each others way and duel. There is a strong precedence for this sort of thing and I imagine more than a few DMs here have tried some sort of wizard vs. wizard match. In media we have Yoda Vs. Palpatine, Lo Pan vs. Egg Shen, Dragonball Z (Cell saga) and Red Cloak vs the High Priest of the 12 Gods. Just like two melee types can engage in a pitched grapple, two casters should be able to strain and swear as they try and block each other's magics.

My tertiary goal was to weaken casters in a subtle way. Casters tend to outperform non-casters. There are exceptions (rogues) but normally the guys on the ground are just trading what blows they can until the wizard mops up. By having casters diminish the effectiveness of other casters, room is made for the barbarians, fighters, monks and rangers in combat. And this is done without nerfing casters but instead by allowing people who play casters to do more with their characters during combat. That way the party paladin can walk away from a fight bragging about how he smited the evil cleric in half and the wizard can add that said smiting was made possible by the paladin not being turned to stone courtesy of the wizard's timely intervention.


That's what I've said; let's look at your counter-arguments.

Counterspelling fundamentally is about removing another's actions; another's effects. In other words, counterspelling is about nullifying fantastic, supernatural awesome effects.

The same can be said of tripping, disarming, grappling, sundering and stunning. The difference is no one seems offended when the fighter gets his sword smashed but cry foul when the wizard gets his spell fizzled. Your argument seems to be that, aside from the frustration of having an action thwarted, having spells blocked more often will diminish the number of special effects your combat has. Describing fireballs and death rays and smoldering demon rage is cool but so is an epic melee match (the premise that melee fights can be really cool to watch is the entire reason for Kung Fu movies existing). Slinging spells and trading blows are doing fundamentally the same thing (causing damage to the other side and/or situational advantages for your side) so I don't see the reason for the preferential treatment.

I would much rather play a game where spell* effects are not countered by preventing them from occurring, but rather where different effects are layered onto the battlefield, and new tactics emerge.

*(or other special abilities of a character)

While I agree with the sentiment of this, I don't think it really works that way. When someone casts battlefield control spells you can quickly have a complex plane of combat develop. Walls of ice, walls of force and freaky black tentacles can shape tactical options in cool and complex ways. That doesn't apply to most spells, however, which are over as soon as they start. Cone of Cold, Wall of Stone, Slay Living, etc. Most SoD and direct damage spells are instantaneous and the only counter to them is to prevent them from happening. Furthermore, my proposed counterspell system would only fizzle 1/4th of the spells cast (assuming casters of equal level). Another 1/4th would still go off and thus be flashy and supernatural, they'd just be numerically easier to resist.

Otherwise, the end point of a counterspelling system is one where very little occurs. That is why counterspelling should suck. If Greater Dispelling was a first level spell (like Frank suggests) that would be fine. You would have a 50% chance of trading your action to nullify the actions of another equal spellcaster. Counterspelling shouldn't be the norm, it should be a last ditch effort where you desperately need to trade your action for a 50% chance to remove another's actions.

Under my system, counterspelling isn't so effective as to stop all visible casting. The impact this should have in the course of a combat should be fairly minor (1/4 spells being cancelled) and the casters may elect not to counterspell since it does cost them spell slots to participate. Every single barbarian ever created could go around tripping people with their combat actions but most of them don't because they have other stuff they want to do; the same will hold true for casters. I consider my proposed counterspelling method as allowing other casters to make a kind of attack of opportunity against another caster; it allows for a metaphorical grappling of magics which I find very appealing thematically and mechanically. But mainly I'm unsatisfied with casters having no options worth considering when interacting with other casters.

I really don't think the effects are going to be as pronounced as you forecast them. If they are then I'll notice during my next campaign and I'll let everyone know. Regardless of the results, I plan on reporting on this little counterspell experiment once my campaign actually starts in a few weeks time.


By the way, does anyone have any opinions on the feasibility of the abjuration-specialist wizard? While I'm really glad for the responses I've received concerning my proposed counterspell changes, I'd really like some feedback on the abjurer as well.

[UmaroVI]

A few suggestions:

We can't really evaluate how balanced this is without knowing what it gives up over generalists. How do generalists work in your homebrew?

1) Do you really need the condition that if you win by 5 or more, the spell fizzles, if you win by 4 or less, it's inhibited? Consider intead having spells always be inhibited, and simply add the amount you win the check by (or maybe divide by two first) and if the DC would be reduced by 11 or more, it fizzles.

2) Inhibiting does nothing at all to spells that allow no saving throw. Consider adding this in as the result for spells that have no save.

3) This just might be me being stupid, but do you mean for counterspelling to be an immediate action, rather than swift? It seems you mean for it to be reactive, not proactive, but swift action is only on your turn, and there's no rules for "holding a swift action."

4)This is kind of a side note, but I would make it +4, rather than +5, for readied-action counterspells. This corresponds to a Quickened spell. So Swift+Standard (readied) <=> Quickened Spell + Regular Spell, with the same chance of countering each.

5) Speaking of metamagic, one area in which this is a very, very powerful - possibly too powerful - tactic is against wizards or sorcerors who are very metamagic reliant. Sorcerer blasters in particular tend to have a small number of damage spells and a lot of metamagic, and since they're already quite weak, it seems bad to hose them further. Consider maybe having all metamagic besides Quicken add directly to the level for this purpose, and Heighten add twice (but only against being dispelled, not against using to dispel).

6) Even if you don't like the above suggestion, Heighten Spell adding to the level of the spell twice for the purpose of trying to counterspell a Heightened Spell is a good way to incorporate a way to "cast defensively" vs. a counterspeller.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Shatner,

My primary goal was to make counterspelling an option you could consider and not be objectively stupider for it. As written you are always better readying an action to blast someone rather than readying to counter someone. That's a flaw; a glaring one that I'd like to see corrected.

Not true. There are many instances where blasting someone is ineffective. Energy Immunity is (only) a 6th level spell. At mid or high levels a caster that doesn't want to be disrupted by energy attacks won't be. Be that as it may, you are better off readying an attack or spell action to counter a spell than using a counterspell.

It only pays off if your opponent is doing something MASSIVELY more significant than anything you could do with your action.

Right.

However, an opponent can't be doing anything massively more powerful than you unless they're a higher level caster than you in which case you don't even have a 50% chance of stopping them.

Good. I would hope that a lower level spellcaster would have a lower chance of counterspelling a high level spellcaster.

Just like two melee types can engage in a pitched grapple, two casters should be able to strain and swear as they try and block each other's magics.

They can and do. They cast tons of spells at each other, creating varied tactics to respond to the other caster's spells. I don't want a spellcaster duel to be two wizards yelling at each other, nullifying each other, and nothing occurring.

My tertiary goal was to weaken casters in a subtle way. Casters tend to outperform non-casters.

As has been stated repeatedly elsewhere, it is better game design to power up the non-casters than gimp the casters.

Counterspelling fundamentally is about removing another's actions; another's effects. In other words, counterspelling is about nullifying fantastic, supernatural awesome effects.

The same can be said of tripping, disarming, grappling, sundering and stunning.

No it can't. Tripping or grappling is an action that does something. It changes the battlefield and options available. It creates dramatic tension in an encounter. Here is an explicit example of how counterspelling is different from melee combat:

Wizard 1: I cast a spell
Wizard 2: I use a counterspell.
Dm: Nothing happens.

Fighter 1: I try to trip him.
Fighter 2: I use a counter-trip maneuver
Dm: Nothing happens.

In both of the above cases, the following occurs:
-One character tries to affect another character with an ability that has a save or check.
-The second character nullifies the first character's actions
-Nothing happens.

Now, obviously there aren't counter-trip or similar counters that completely nullifies each others actions. Instead in melee, something happens. So one Fighter might trip or grapple another. Even the counter abilities, like close-quarter fighting do something interesting. It creates a chance to escape a grapple attempt, and damages your foe in the process. That is much more interesting, and how counters should be designed.

The difference is no one seems offended when the fighter gets his sword smashed but cry foul when the wizard gets his spell fizzled.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Is this actually your experience?

Describing fireballs and death rays and smoldering demon rage is cool but so is an epic melee match (the premise that melee fights can be really cool to watch is the entire reason for Kung Fu movies existing). Slinging spells and trading blows are doing fundamentally the same thing (causing damage to the other side and/or situational advantages for your side) so I don't see the reason for the preferential treatment.

Right. You wouldn't want melee combat to work like counterspelling does.

That doesn't apply to most spells, however, which are over as soon as they start.

Instantaneous effects ethier occur or they do not. Melee attacks or a trip check occur instantaneously. That doesn't make them bad or broken.

SoD's are a separate issue from counterspelling and shouldn't be confused as the same problem.
____________________

This is all subjective. I just don't think it would be fun. Take of it what you will.

[Shatner]

UmaroVI, I have been giving your response some thought. After a busy weekend, I'm finally ready to reply.

A few suggestions:

We can't really evaluate how balanced this is without knowing what it gives up over generalists. How do generalists work in your homebrew?

What I'm trying to design are revamped versions of each wizard specialization (divination specialist, conjuration specialist, evocation specialist, etc.) such that each specialization is a very different sort of wizard. Ultimately, the generalist wizard would remain unchanged. Presently, I'm thinking of requiring wizards to specialize and each specialization is meant to bring mechanic feasibility to a number of wizard archetypes not well supported by the rules as written. As such the necromancy specialist gets Animate Dead as a 1st level spell and can rebuke undead like a cleric, the evocation specialist gets Fireball as a 1st level spell and all his evocation spells are empowered for free, and so on. On the surface, a generalist might seem to suffer but each specialization is meant to prop up a normally underpowered wizard concept so it should, in theory, balance out.

1) Do you really need the condition that if you win by 5 or more, the spell fizzles, if you win by 4 or less, it's inhibited? Consider intead having spells always be inhibited, and simply add the amount you win the check by (or maybe divide by two first) and if the DC would be reduced by 11 or more, it fizzles.

That's a really good suggestion and I really like the simplicity of the mechanic. I initially balked at the end-points of the continuum you suggest when you have two equal casters expending equal spells: rolling an 11 reduces the DC by a paltry 1 and rolling a 20 reduces the DC by 10 (thus making it impossible for a spell to fizzle in this scenario). However, I realized that it averages out the same (a DC 5 reduction) and that a spell reduced in DC by 6 or more among casters of equal level may as well have fizzled in the first place. Also, your version makes the caster with the Improved Counterspell feat less lethal; before they would have a 25% chance of failure (rolling a 1 through 5), 25% chance of reducing the DC by 10 (6 - 10) and a 50% chance of negating the spell (11+) which seemed a bit much. With your version, they only negate on a 16+. Again, a good suggestion which I eventually came around to.

2) Inhibiting does nothing at all to spells that allow no saving throw. Consider adding this in as the result for spells that have no save.

I'm thinking that spells which don't allow saves (or are harmless, like an enemy caster trying to teleport away) should be handled as follows: you roll your counterspell check like normal and you then roll a d10. If the results of the d10 are less than or equal to your margin of success, the spell fizzles. In other words, if you roll the minimum necessary in your counterspell attempt your margin of success is 1 so you have a 10% chance of fizzling their spell. If you succeed by 5 then you have a 50% chance and so on.

3) This just might be me being stupid, but do you mean for counterspelling to be an immediate action, rather than swift? It seems you mean for it to be reactive, not proactive, but swift action is only on your turn, and there's no rules for "holding a swift action."

Yeah, I meant immediate action. That was just me confusing terminology. And just to make it clear, when I talk about someone making the extra effort to ready an action to counter a spell (and as such getting a +5 bonus to their effective caster level) I mean holding their standard action to counter the spell. This means that a person readying an action to counter a spell could also use their immediate action to counter a different spell (though they wouldn't receive the +5 bonus to that counterspell attempt).

4)This is kind of a side note, but I would make it +4, rather than +5, for readied-action counterspells. This corresponds to a Quickened spell. So Swift+Standard (readied) <=> Quickened Spell + Regular Spell, with the same chance of countering each.

I'm going to stick with the +5 bonus/-5 penalties because I like the way it shifts the numbers up and down 25%. I'd like this technique to be as simple and intuitive as I can get it while still having it function in the desired manner. I want people to be able to eyeball the results once they're used to it and even people with bad math skills can handle increments of 25.

5) Speaking of metamagic, one area in which this is a very, very powerful - possibly too powerful - tactic is against wizards or sorcerors who are very metamagic reliant. Sorcerer blasters in particular tend to have a small number of damage spells and a lot of metamagic, and since they're already quite weak, it seems bad to hose them further. Consider maybe having all metamagic besides Quicken add directly to the level for this purpose, and Heighten add twice (but only against being dispelled, not against using to dispel).

I had forgotten about metamagic and I agree that should be taken into account. Therefore, it's the spell slot expended that determines the bonus to counterspelling (both for and against) and not the actual level of the spell. I'm not going to given Heightened spells any special treatment because in a way they are already more counterspell resistant than non-heightened spells: they have a higher DC. Charm Person as a 1st level spell has a DC of 10 + int/cha mod + 1 while that same spell raised to be a 5th level spell has a DC of 10 + int/cha mod + 5. If a counterspell attempt reduces the DC by 4, the 1st level spell is brought lower than the 5th level spell, which sounds like it should to me. No-Save spells that had been heightened would also be more counterspell resistant by merit of taking a higher level spell-slot and thus requiring a larger roll to get a good chance of canceling it.

6) Even if you don't like the above suggestion, Heighten Spell adding to the level of the spell twice for the purpose of trying to counterspell a Heightened Spell is a good way to incorporate a way to "cast defensively" vs. a counterspeller.

Again, I'm not too thrilled about making Heightened spells any more resistant to counterspelling than they would normally be by merit of their higher spell slot. I would like all of the counterspell options to be available to all casters regardless of their feat-selection. I just want counterspell feats to improve the effectiveness of some of those options. As such, I'd rather have counterspell defense require things all casters have access to: actions and/or spells. Spells vary in importance over levels (1st level spells are important for a 3rd level wizard but not really for a 10th level wizard and may as well not exist for a 20th level wizard) so I'm not going to use them because any fixed bonuses assigned to them would be doomed to be inaccurate somewhere in between 1st and 20th level. Actions, however, remain of fixed importance throughout levels so I'd rather charge those. As such, if a caster doubles the casting time of their spell then they are casting "resistantly" (better name, anyone?) and get a +10 bonus to their effective caster level versus counterspell attempts.

Since I want to make counterspelling pervasive, I'm thinking a counterspell defense feat is in order. Something like: the caster is always considered as casting resistantly (thus getting a +10 to their effective caster level versus counterspell) without having to increase their casting time. They also count as five caster levels higher for resisting dispel attempts. How does that sound?


SphereOfFeetMan: Rather than continue with point-by-point counterarguments, I'm of the opinion that we have different expectations of how desirable pervasive counterspelling should be. Fair enough. I'm mainly wanting my proposed changes (abjuration specialist and counterspelling) studied from a mechanical stand point. After trying these out in a real campaign I will post my impressions of how it affected the game experience and heightened/diminished fun for the players. Then you and I might have more to talk about.