D&D 5E Counterspell Idea

Dannyalcatraz · Sep 27, 2012

At least in my experience, few people in 3e used the counterspelling rules just because using them was not worth the effort of learning the mechanic. Only if you wanted to explore the concept and build some kind of specialist around it...

I really, really wanted to...and I didn't.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Sep 27, 2012

Li Shenron said:
*At least in my experience, few people in 3e used the counterspelling rules just because using them was not worth the effort of learning the mechanic.

Actually, I'd say that the 3.XE counterspelling mechanic wan't that hard to learn at all (ready an action; id the spell the opponent is casting (which you'll likely be doing anyway); cast the appropriate counterspell; roll a check if you used Dispel Magic); the problem is that the trade-off was so seldomly worth it.

slobo777 · Sep 27, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Actually, I'd say that the 3.XE counterspelling mechanic wan't that hard to learn at all (ready an action; id the spell the opponent is casting (which you'll likely be doing anyway); cast the appropriate counterspell; roll a check if you used Dispel Magic); the problem is that the trade-off was so seldomly worth it.

This.

You had to be pretty certain a spell attack was coming that you had a chance of countering (even with improved counterspell you had to match the school of magic and level), and even then that the consequences of it going off were worse than you not casting an attack or buff on your turn.

In ~5 years of playing 3E, never saw a counterspell actually played. I did make an NPC sorcerer counterspell specialist whose job it was to defend the town guard, but that was just a build exploration for fun really, it never saw action.

Ainamacar · Sep 27, 2012

Me said:
This has merits, but it probably does not handle extended contests between casters nor the almost certain action denial abilities of multiple casters vs. a single one.

Li Shenron said:
Definitely not, but I think it's probably for the best to stay simple, to provide a mechanic that is usable by every gaming group*.

Then eventually the concept can be expanded with a tiny module / optional rules to handle more complicated scenario.

Oh, I agree, all other things being equal, the simplest mechanic will tend to be the best one. That the simple mechanic suggested doesn't cover extended contests is therefore no great sin, especially since lacking a representation of that scenario does not prevent impair the functioning of short-term counterspelling. In my opinion the action economy issue is different because the negative impact here inherently strikes at core areas of the game's playability, and does not depend in an obvious way on either the simplicity or complexity of its mechanics. Only when we compare it to an alternate mechanic will we be able to weigh that against its simplicity.

Personally I think this is a general problem in the 3e approach: too many topics were addressed with countless "what if?" questions which lead the designers to add too many modifiers, too many rules detail, too many steps (grappling!), too many exceptions, too many circumstances... It's all good for a group who loves the details, but it's a nightmare for others.

I don't think the "what if?" questions were the problem. In my mind the basic tension is between the "expressivity" of a mechanic vs. its complexity, both understood very broadly. In 3e they often increased expressivity a little while adding quite a few rarely used details. So the question is right, probably even vital to designing a playable game, but the response was often lacking. I'm not interested in going down that path again either.

The appropriate response, in my opinion, is neither to maximize expressivity nor minimize complexity, but to maximize their ratio. In statements of the principle of parsimony this tends to be only implicit (since "all other things being equal" is a very useful and universal way to frame the idea, even though it holds so rarely) and can give the erroneous impression that simplicity itself is the highest value.

Applied to counterspelling, I place enough value on the action economy that I'd accept a sizable but not arbitrarily large amount of added complexity in order to protect it compared to a mechanic that does not. (These are all matters of degree, I'm sure you'll agree, even if we weight the specifics differently.) Moreover, it is not clear to me that only a more complex counterspelling system can achieve it given the basic structure of D&D magic (though that might be the case). I don't know what this hypothetical mechanic might look like, but my critique of the suggested mechanic should not be interpreted as a willingness to write a multitude of corner cases into the rules. I believe in the determination and comprehensive analysis of trade-offs.

Gorgoroth · Sep 28, 2012

Dispel Magic

should be a class ability, with the "cost" of using it, as a reaction to an enemy casting a spell, being that you can consume one of your memoried spell slots of the same level (or higher), to counter it.

That way, whoever has the most spells reserved wins, i.e. in a duel between equal levelled wizards fresh after breakfast studies, they've have an equal chance to win or lose depending on a succession of dice rolls. You need to roll an "attack" roll for it to work, too. You attack the magic with your magic.

Gives "I cast magic missile...at the darkness!!!" a valid in-game excuse (if that darkness were caused by a level 1 magic spell, that is).

Lanefan · Sep 28, 2012

Gorgoroth said:
should be a class ability, with the "cost" of using it, as a reaction to an enemy casting a spell, being that you can consume one of your memoried spell slots of the same level (or higher), to counter it.

That way, whoever has the most spells reserved wins, i.e. in a duel between equal levelled wizards fresh after breakfast studies, they've have an equal chance to win or lose depending on a succession of dice rolls. You need to roll an "attack" roll for it to work, too. You attack the magic with your magic.

Gives "I cast magic missile...at the darkness!!!" a valid in-game excuse (if that darkness were caused by a level 1 magic spell, that is).

I think we might be defining counterspell a bit differently, given your last bit above.

If the darkness is already in place you'd just use the standard Dispel Magic to deal with it.

Counterspell is different in that it is acting on the Darkness spell while it is still being cast. Once it's cast and resolved you're too late to counter it.

That said, in response to some other things above I think Counterspell should be a spell and be an exceptional spell in that even casters using non-Vancian mechanics have to prepare it or pre-memorize it; but it should be able to counter (almost)* any arcane spell being cast without me having to know what it is, no save. Yes this means I can take out your 8th-level Bigby's Whatever-type-of Hand while you're casting it with my 2nd-level Counterspell even if I've never heard of Bigby or any of his Hands; that's the whole point.

* - the exception would be spells that have a shorter casting time** than Counterspell - Featherfall is the only one that quickly leaps to mind.

** - and if casting time isn't put back into 5e I'll put it in myself. Dumb idea to ever take it out...

Lanefan

Li Shenron · Sep 28, 2012

Ainamacar said:
In my opinion the action economy issue is different because the negative impact here inherently strikes at core areas of the game's playability

I agree... requiring to ready an action makes the tactic very inconvenient, because you'll be wasting your time unless the target casts a spell AND you identify it correctly AND you have the appropriate counterspell available.

This is why my starting suggestion is to allow counterspelling as a reaction. It might sound a little too good, since you're not going to waste any action on a "negative case", you're going to use your action only when you actually CAN counterspell.

BUT let's try to keep in mind a few points and see if my suggestion holds up:

- as per the current rules on reactions, you will lose your action next turn, so you have a choice: either you counterspell a little earlier than your turn, or you take you whole turn perhaps to cast a spell on your own (this is totally fair IMHO)

- there are currently no rules for identifying spells as they are cast, so I assumed that there is no need for that, i.e. by default you know immediately what is the spell being cast, therefore this is not what gives counterspelling a chance of failure

- I suggested Dispel Magic because it re-introduces a chance of failure (except against spells of level up to 2) even in the absence of a spell identification check

- second reason for Dispel Magic was because I think that requiring exactly the same spell to counterspell (like e.g. casting Fireball to counterspell a Fireball) makes it too infrequent... you need to have the same spell known and prepared; this can still be a possibility, but at least should not be the only way to counterspell

BUT...

While I was checking the Dispel Magic description... I found out that there is already a Counterspell spell in the playtest package!! :blush:

And it works pretty much like that, it's a reaction spell.

Now the only question that remains for me is: do we really need two different spells, one for counterspelling and one for dispelling? Would it be too good to have only one spell for both applications? I think this is not actually a critical difference, for a Wizard one more spell to learn is not a big deal, but it might be a bigger deal for a Sorcerer or whoever has a very limited number of spells to pick.

Sadras · Sep 28, 2012

Lanefan said:
...I think Counterspell should be a spell and be an exceptional spell in that even casters using non-Vancian mechanics have to prepare it or pre-memorize it

I disagree, because this would make Counterspell a "must-have" spell by all spellcasters at all times: If you didn't memorize it, you would be gimping your caster and weakening the strength of the party. We should stay away from making those spells.
@Gorgoroth 's suggestion was reasonable that it should be a class ability utlised as a reaction. It allows for those epic movie magic duels we would like to emulate in tabletop.
It should consume a spell slot when activated, however I propose the limit that the caster would have to use a spell slot from the same school - it only makes sense and is fair.
i.e. You should not be able to fight off Magic Missile with Darkness. And it need not be readied like in 3.x

Then a simple d20 mechanic would filter in - perhaps opposed rolls.
Modifiers could be spell level and ability modifier and perhaps 1 for every 2 levels of caster (whatever takes your fancy).
- A higher result by the original caster would mean his spell goes through.
- A higher result by the counterspeller would mean the spell was negated, and/or perhaps his spell went through instead.
A pass by 10 or more by either result could lead to fantastical events (DM adlib)

Why complicate things further? It also fits in with the Fighter parrying in melee through Combat Superiority, now the Wizard can counter spells with a spell slot cost and a limit (same spell school).

Other modular limits:
Of course the caster would have to identify the school - arcana or experience (DM fiat)
As @Lanefan correctly pointed out casting time of the spell might play a role (to the groups that use casting times and the like).

And as for Dispel Magic, well that does not accurately describe Counterspell and it would make it MORE of a "must-have" spell within the caster's repetoire which is incredibly unappealing. Every wizard would have it memorized. Meh!

Dannyalcatraz · Sep 28, 2012

Does 5Ed have action points?

If so, make it work by 1) IDing the spell then, 2) burning an action pointto react- some kind of opposed roll with a bonus or penalty based on how well you succeeded in IDing the spell, possibly level based bonuses as well (reflecting the relative strength of the casters).

Blind counterspelling- acting withougmIDing the spell- could still be done, but it would be done with a significant penalty.

Li Shenron · Sep 28, 2012

Dannyalcatraz said:
Does 5Ed have action points?

If so, make it work by 1) IDing the spell then, 2) burning an action pointto react- some kind of opposed roll with a bonus or penalty based on how well you succeeded in IDing the spell, possibly level based bonuses as well (reflecting the relative strength of the casters).

Blind counterspelling- acting withougmIDing the spell- could still be done, but it would be done with a significant penalty.

You can add counterspelling to the list of stuff you can do with action points.

But you definitely shouldn't make action point the default/only way to counterspell. There are many groups who totally hate action points as a too gamist construct, but may still want to have counterspelling in the game.