Making counterspell not suck

[Surgo]

Everyone knows that the counterspell action, as it stands now, completely sucks. Why would you waste a ready action to simply 'counter their spell' when you could instead, say, ready an action to blast them in the face if they started casting a spell, thus forcing a massive concentration check which will surely be failed, accomplishing the same thing while actually getting something done (damage) at the same time.

That's a huge disconnect from how counterspelling can work in the literature. In the Wheel of Time series, channelers counter each others' weaves by slashing them with a knife of Spirit (if they are female) or Spirit, Earth, and Fire (if they are male). That imagery is totally sweet, the action itself doesn't take any time at all compared to weaving a weave to roast them alive, and in-game counterspelling should be inspired by something like that.

To that effect, I have created a feat to help make counterspelling something that players and NPCs might actually attempt from time to time instead of simply sucking balls.

Counterspell Tactics [Skill]
This is a skill feat that scales with your ranks in Spellcraft.
Ranks:
0: You gain a +3 bonus to Spellcraft checks.
4: When counterspelling, you may use a spell of the same school that is one or more spell levels higher than the target spell.
9: You can counterspell as an immediate action.
14: If you are a spellcaster who prepares spells, you may lose any prepared spell in order to cast a dispel spell of the same level or lower. If you are a spellcaster that casts spells spontaneously, all dispel spells are considered spells known for you at the level you would gain access to them normally. Should you already know a dispel spell, you instead may add another spell of equivalent or lesser level from your class's spell list to your list of spells known.
19: You can counterspell as a free action even when it is not your turn, but only when using dispel magic or an equivalent effect.

The only problem I have with that is the 14-rank bonus; it, unfortunately, doesn't cover all spellcasters. There's a few spellcasting classes that cast spells spontaneously and know their entire spell list, like the Summoner from Tome of Fiends. I'm not entirely sure what to do there if they already have the dispel spells on their spell list; what kind of bonus should they get then? Usually they have a class feature that allows them to add new spells to their spell lists, so perhaps it should say "You may instead add another spell of equivalent or lesser level to your list of spells known as if by the class feature that allows you to do so." Or something.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

...But counterspelling as a tactic right now is so shitty that requiring a feat to unshittify it is the wrong way to go.

There's gotta be a better counterspelling ruleset out there to start from before trying to revise it with a feat.

[Judging__Eagle]

If you successfully Identify the spell, you could try to counter it.

This means you have to sacrifice a spell slot to do so, you have to make sacrifice a spell slot of the same level or higher, if you do so you can attempt to counter your opponent's spell via either
-opposed caster class level checks, the person countering has a -3 on their check; if you use the spell Dispel Magic you do not suffer a -3 to your check and instead gain +2 to your check.
or
-opposed spellcraft skill ranks checks
[class levels and skill ranks to prevent any sort of cheating or cheese, annoying, but fair]

If you are countering and succeed, the spell is fizzled. If you fail, the spell occurs and you lost a spell slot.

None of this "preparing to counter" of "countering with the same spell" BS.

Also, having Dispel Magic is handy since it will always let you use your caster level +2, a 5 point difference over using any spell to counter.

That or use opposing spell levels? Making it so that Dispel Magic can work against spells that are higher level, before you get greater Dispel Magic.

Just some ideas.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

The problem with that is that it's still a net loss for the counterspeller. If you have to give up the spell that you just used to counterspell, that means you could have, instead, readied the action to cast the same spell, which would have both resulted in your casting the spell at the baddie and fucking up his spell by requiring a ridiculous concentration check.

So you gotta look at the real purpose of counterspelling. If you can only counterspell spells with the same spell or the exact opposite spell or dispel magic, what does that mean? That means it should be easier to counterspell commonly used spells than obscure ones, and that some rare people will be counterspelling machines who hate spellcasters with a passion and only prep dispel magic.

If counterspelling is as difficult and costly as just casting the spell yourself, no one will counterspell and everyone will just cast the damn spell. Yes, it should be an immediate action, but coming up with a cost beyond that is the real challenge.

[Manxome]

Pardon my ignorance, but are you saying that casters generally have the capability to disrupt the casting of an equally-powerful enemy caster, on that enemy's turn, as a side effect of casting an already-awesome spell? Does this mean that, in a caster duel, whoever tries to cast the first spell loses? Or what? How can casters actually fight each other with that sort of set-up?

On the face of it, expending an equal amount of resources (in terms of actions and spell slots) to reliably negate an enemy action should be fairly balanced, slightly favoring the counter-actor (since he gets to choose whether and when he performs this action, and against which enemy, and it should be particularly awesome if your side already has the upper hand). Does counter-spelling suck due to excessive action costs? Poor reliability? Needlessly restrictive prerequisites? And whatever drawback makes it suck, couldn't you just reduce/eliminate that drawback?

Or does it just suck in comparison to some insanely awesome and broken alternative?

[Surgo]

Counterspelling would suck even if the alternative didn't exist (the alternative is readying an action to shoot/stab/spell the opponent spellcaster in the face if they start to cast a spell, thus forcing a stupidly massive concentration check). Normally you have to ready an action to specifically counterspell (and nothing else), so the alternative is obviously better pretty much all of the time. Not to mention the fact that you need to counter with the exact same spell, or Dispel Magic, or it won't work.

You can get around this with the Reactive Counterspell feat, which allows you to do it as a semi-immediate action (it eats up your standard action of the next round) but the feat has two prerequisites already and it still eats up a valuable action.

So basically, "all of the above" is the answer to your question, Manxome. The feat I have the OP rectifies this problem (I think) and Hey I Can Chan says that it shouldn't take a feat to fix the otherwise sucky mechanic, something that I'm completely cool with too; the rank 4, 9, and 19 benefits could just be straight-up given to casters at the appropriate levels and that would be perfectly fine.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Pardon my ignorance, but are you saying that casters generally have the capability to disrupt the casting of an equally-powerful enemy caster, on that enemy's turn, as a side effect of casting an already-awesome spell?

Yep.

DM: You won initiative.
Player: I ready an action--I'm gonna cast scorching ray on him if he tries to cast a spell.
DM: Okay. The evil cleric moves and starts casting. Your readied action is triggered.
Player: I hit a touch AC of 19; that's successful, right? [DM nods] Okay. That means I do 14 points of damage. He has to make a DC 24 Concentration check to keep the spell.
DM: Let's see. [Consults NPC character sheet--Clr4 with maximum ranks in Concentration and Con 14 means a Concentration bonus of +9, or a 15 or higher to be successful. Dice are rolled. NPC, unsurprisingly, fails the check.] Yeah, his spell doesn't go off.
Player: I ready an action to cast a spell if he casts a spell.

Ad infinitum.

Fixing this rules quirk is easy: decree that spells can't be readied. However, that crimps a lot of tactics and makes things difficult even in a largely role-playing environment. Another alternative would be to remove the 10+ on 10+damage dealt line of the Concentration chart, which would make these sorts of situations a bit more fair. Yeah, this is really the only instance in which evocation spells kick more ass than other kinds.

Does this mean that, in a caster duel, whoever tries to cast the first spell loses? Or what? How can casters actually fight each other with that sort of set-up?

Actually, as stated above, it makes it to where whoever wins initiative wins. We knew this in wizard battles already, but examples like the above make it absurdly clear. However, it is also why those wizards who rely on bizarro tactics sometimes come out on top ("I ready an action to cast scorching ray if he casts a spell," says the player. "Okay, he reaches into his bag of tricks and hurls a rhino at you," says the DM).

Against a DM who is unimaginitive, this is a valid tactic. If the DM decrees no one can tell when another is readying an action, this is a valid tactic. Take away either of those, and it ain't so hot.

[Draco_Argentum]

They need to be able to tell the trigger condition, not just that you're readying an action.

[Surgo]

In this case, they did: "when they start casting a spell".

[Fuzzy_logic]

I've used counterspelling pretty frequently, actually. Admittedly, it was in a big group where trading off one PC's action to protect somebody was no big deal.

Yes, one COULD use a direct damage spell to disrupt, but in a higer-level game that's not very reliable.

We fought a lot of spell-using outsiders who had spell resistance, energy resistance and sometimes good touch AC or concealment. Occasionally also dragons, who have crazy high concentration checks.

An actual enemy wizard can easily have displacement, spell resistance or turning, protection form energy, and more...

I'd much rather negate his offense and let the party fighters take him down than try to find a way to hurt him myself.

[Draco_Argentum]

1195868567[/unixtime]]In this case, they did: "when they start casting a spell".

Right, but if I ready to cast when you move and you go "lol I won't cast I'll throw a bag of tricks and move" you're still going to get hit with a spell. Unless you're an ass DM who has his NPCs know the difference.