About: Better Counterspelling (3.5e Variant Rule)

Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Better Counterspelling (3.5e Variant Rule) Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

Everyone who has played a magic user for any length of time has probably noticed that the counterspelling rules totally suck. Why would you ever spend an action to counterspell, when instead you could spend an action blasting the spellcaster in the face, thus forcing them to make a concentration check that they will certainly fail -- accomplishing the same thing as well as piling more damage on them?

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Better Counterspelling (3.5e Variant Rule)
rdfs:comment	Everyone who has played a magic user for any length of time has probably noticed that the counterspelling rules totally suck. Why would you ever spend an action to counterspell, when instead you could spend an action blasting the spellcaster in the face, thus forcing them to make a concentration check that they will certainly fail -- accomplishing the same thing as well as piling more damage on them?
dcterms:subject	User 3.5e Supplemental Variant Rule
author name	Surgo
dbkwik:dungeons/pr...iPageUsesTemplate	dbkwik:resource/hS7Y2tT-ytH2K0FPCcJ_-w== dbkwik:resource/9aD-NAHlkmSPs149ELP5MQ==
date created	2010-04-07(xsd:date)
Editing	Spelling and grammar only
Status	Complete
abstract	Everyone who has played a magic user for any length of time has probably noticed that the counterspelling rules totally suck. Why would you ever spend an action to counterspell, when instead you could spend an action blasting the spellcaster in the face, thus forcing them to make a concentration check that they will certainly fail -- accomplishing the same thing as well as piling more damage on them? In addition, there's an entire section of the combat mechanics that, while spellcasters have them available to them, they are almost entirely useless outside of specialized builds -- attacks of opportunity. Wouldn't it be nice to fix both of these problems at once? To that end, I suggest the following replacement for the counterspelling rules. A spellcaster can counter any spell that traces its line of effect through their square. This counterspelling area can be extended to their normal threatened area by using a magic weapon with which they are proficient (wizards commonly use staves for this purpose). To counter a spell, the spellcaster makes an Attack of Opportunity on the spell against an armor class equal to the spell's saving throw DC, or the DC it would have if the spell allowed for a saving throw. If they hit, they must expend a spell slot of equal or higher level than the spell they are counterspelling, and the spell is successfully dispelled. Finally, you can use a dispel spell to attempt to counter a spell. This does not require the spell to pass through your threatened area, nor does it use an Attack of Opportunity. Attempting to counter a spell with dispel is an immediate action, and requires making a dispel check as per the original counterspelling rules.

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software