Can you counterspell a spell-like ability?

[MerakSpielman]

Well, can you?

 

[UltimaGabe]

I'm gonna say no. Spell-Like Abilities have no components, and therefore it's impossible to identify a Spell-Like Ability to counter it.

 

[Fieari]

I'll also say no, based on the fact that metamagic feats don't work on spell-like abilities either... you have to use tailor made meta-spell-like-ability feats. This suggests that spell-like abilities and spells are fundamentally different, and things that effect one do not effect the other.

 

[Bauglir]

This one came up in Rules of the Game quite recently

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040420a

A spell-like ability cannot be used as a counterspell, and it is not subject to counterspells. A counterspell involves recognizing a spell as it is being cast, then quickly altering that same spell so as to create an opposite effect that cancels out the original spell. A spell-like ability is essentially hardwired into its user's psyche, and its power is released mentally. The process is sufficiently different from spellcasting so it that doesn't allow a foe to identify the spell-like ability, and a counterspell cannot interfere with the spell-like ability's magical energy as it can with a spell.

 

[mikebr99]

This one came up in Rules of the Game quite recently

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040420a

I think that article DID go on to say, you could use dispel magic to counter a spell-like ability... which I personally wouldn't allow. YMMV


Mike

 

[Bauglir]

Indeed it does:

As noted earlier, a spell-like ability is subject to dispelling (provided the spell it duplicates is subject to dispelling). When a spell-like ability can be dispelled (as most of them are) one can effectively counter them with a dispel magic spell. While spell-like abilities are not normally subject to counterspells, dispel magic is not really a counterspell. When you use dispel magic as a counterspell, what you're really doing is casting a quick, targeted dispel effect at the correct moment to negate the enemy spell and not creating an opposite magical effect that cancels your enemy's spell.

It makes sense to me - he seems to be saying you can't properly counterspell a SLA because there's no way to tell what spell it is (due to no components - I would suppose a still, silent, eschewed spell would be the same) - but you don't NEED to know what spell they're casting to throw in a Dispel.

Out of curiosity, what is it about it that doesn't sit well with you?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Out of curiosity, what is it about it that doesn't sit well with you?

He wants to decrease the [dubious] value of counterspelling even further?

Personally, I'd say that if someone wants to spend his winning initiative action against an unknown foe on preparing to counterspell, I've got no problem with it working, even if the foe is using a spell-like ability. After all, you can still counterspell a silent, still, material-component-eschewed spell.

Because that's really the only effect it's going to have - if players can't counter SLA's, then they won't ready to counterspell against a foe which uses SLA's. And otherwise, they're giving up their surprise action against an unknown foe.

Personally I think the more counterspelling the better.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I see no problem in allowing (Sp) being counterspelled by a Dispel Magic.
Counterspelling has advantages and disadvantages and as far as I can see, this is perfectly fine and seems not unbalancing.

 

[mikebr99]

It makes sense to me - he seems to be saying you can't properly counterspell a SLA because there's no way to tell what spell it is (due to no components - I would suppose a still, silent, eschewed spell would be the same) - but you don't NEED to know what spell they're casting to throw in a Dispel.

Out of curiosity, what is it about it that doesn't sit well with you?

Well...
In my mind, the counterspell mechanic works like this... your target starts to cast a spell... you (with your readied action or reactive action) get some telltale sign of it's (the spell) very beginnings, in the form of at least one component (V,S, M, F, or DF) and immediately use spellcraft to decide what the spell is going to be, then counter with a very shortened version of the same (or similar, or dispel magic), all in the span of about +/- 3 seconds.

I am saying you need that telltale sign (& enough time to get the counter off) to initiate the counter... whichever way you are going to do it. And SLAs or still/silent/eschewed spells have the signs removed. And quickened spells happen to fast to give you any time to get anything off in the middle of it's casting. YMMV



Mike

 

[Bauglir]

Well...
In my mind, the counterspell mechanic works like this... your target starts to cast a spell... you (with your readied action or reactive action) get some telltale sign of it's (the spell) very beginnings, in the form of at least one component (V,S, M, F, or DF) and immediately use spellcraft to decide what the spell is going to be, then counter with a very shortened version of the same (or similar, or dispel magic), all in the span of about +/- 3 seconds.

I am saying you need that telltale sign (& enough time to get the counter off) to initiate the counter... whichever way you are going to do it. And SLAs or still/silent/eschewed spells have the signs removed. And quickened spells happen to fast to give you any time to get anything off in the middle of it's casting. YMMV

Mike

How do you reconcile the idea that SLAs provoke AoOs into that? I've always considered that someone using a SLA must have to noticeably stop and concentrate for a moment, which is a sign they're casting SOMETHING, even if you don't know exactly what.