D&D 5E Counterspell what do people think?

DND_Reborn · Jul 24, 2019

TallIan said:
My concern with many of the suggestions offered in this thread is complexity. The more rolls you add to a rule, the longer that rule takes to resolve. Since CS is a reaction, it really needs to be quick. Even the roll for for higher level spells is stretching the time taken to resolve this, so making it an opposed check is making things worse, not better IMO.

A whiplash/feedback mechanic seems like it could be a good, flavourful and fun idea but I am not sure it will be worth it. Especially if passing the CS check hits the original caster and failing hits the counterspeller. It's a net 0 effect (not mathematically I know).

As it stands casting CS runs the risk of using a 3rd level slot for no effect, which strikes me as a good risk/reward mechanism. When it comes to outright countering spells 3rd level and below I think that skipping the roll for a faster resolution is a simple way to keep things going when the effect of the countered spell will likely be minimal.

To me things look like this:

PC level 5/6: You're using your top level slots to lock down an enemy is a HUGE cost so should have big rewards - guaranteed success:
PC level 6 to 10: Using 3rd level spells is still quite a big cost so countering low levels spells seems fair while countering higher level spells comes at the risk of failure (a spell slot for absolutely nothing). Using higher level spells to guarantee success is trading power (high level spell slot cost) for certainty.
As you increase in level lower level spells become more trivial so I like seeing a quick resolution , while keeping some risk or cost when throwing out big guns.

The only change I would really think to be good would be to require the CS to be of a higher level that the countered spell. ie Casting CS at 3rd level would auto counter 1st and 2nd level spells. That way casting a 9th level spell always has a chance for success.

You have a good point about the speed of it. I am always looking for ways to speed up the game. An idea I just had (might tinker with it, might not) is to remove the roll and have counterspell automatically work but the caster takes damage as he stops the spell. I was thinking something like this:

Counterspell

3rd-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous

You interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the spell level of the spell you interrupt is equal to or less than the spell level slot you use for Counterspell, you take psychic damage equal to twice the spell level of the interrupted spell. If the spell level slot is higher than the spell slot you use for Counterspell, you take psychic damage equal to three times the spell level of the interrupted spell. This damage cannot be avoided or transferred.

So, you cast Counterspell using a 4th-level slot against a 4th-level spell, and you take 8 psychic damage. If the spell you interrupted was 5th-level or higher, you could take 15 psychic damage or more!

Just a thought... *shrug*

Garthanos · Jul 24, 2019

Counterspell Ping Pong

One more question - Counterspell vs Cantrip - send the cantrip back at its caster?

Seramus · Jul 24, 2019

Garthanos said:
So you let them know what the spell is which is being cast?

I know Xanathar came out and said spell identification is a Reaction, but before that I spent years running it as a passive check against their knowledges.

WaterRabbit · Jul 24, 2019

dnd4vr said:
You have a good point about the speed of it. I am always looking for ways to speed up the game. An idea I just had (might tinker with it, might not) is to remove the roll and have counterspell automatically work but the caster takes damage as he stops the spell. I was thinking something like this:

Counterspell

[FONT=&]3rd-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]You interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the spell level of the spell you interrupt is equal to or less than the spell level slot you use for Counterspell, you take psychic damage equal to twice the spell level of the interrupted spell. If the spell level slot is higher than the spell slot you use for Counterspell, you take psychic damage equal to three times the spell level of the interrupted spell. This damage cannot be avoided or transferred.

So, you cast Counterspell using a 4th-level slot against a 4th-level spell, and you take 8 psychic damage. If the spell you interrupted was 5th-level or higher, you could take 15 psychic damage or more!
[/FONT][FONT=&]
Just a thought... *shrug*[/FONT]

It would be simpler to just ban the spell, because again no one will bother with this. It is better to just let the fighters take the damage.

DND_Reborn · Jul 24, 2019

WaterRabbit said:
It would be simpler to just ban the spell, because again no one will bother with this. It is better to just let the fighters take the damage.

I respectfully disagree.

An enemy sorcerer casts a Fireball, and would get a party of 4. Let's say half make their save and half don't. That is a total of 84 damage (28 x 2 and 14 x 2) on average.

Or, the group's wizard casts counterspell at 3rd level and takes only 6 pyschic damage. That seems like a good trade-off to me.

Even if the enemy caster is allowed to counter the counterspell, the party takes the same damage but now the enemy caster takes the 6 psychic damage... I was even toying with the idea that if a counterspell is used to interrupt a counterspell, the damage is doubled.

WaterRabbit · Jul 24, 2019

dnd4vr said:
I respectfully disagree.

An enemy sorcerer casts a Fireball, and would get a party of 4. Let's say half make their save and half don't. That is a total of 84 damage (28 x 2 and 14 x 2).

Or, the group's wizard casts counterspell at 3rd level and takes only 6 pyschic damage. That seems like a good trade-off to me.

Even if the enemy caster is allowed to counter the counterspell, the party takes the same damage but now the enemy caster takes the 6 psychic damage... I was even toying with the idea that if a counterspell is used to interrupt a counterspell, the damage is doubled.

So? My wizard, who isn't going to be in the same AoE for fireball as the fighter, is instead going to use their spell to kill the enemy wizard instead of wasting my 3rd level slot to take damage when I have a whole lot less HP than the fighter.

You see this whole discussion is such a marginal issue. In D&D, offense is king. Like most turn-based games it is better to use your actions and resources to burn down the enemy as fast a possible instead of trying to counter them. Counterspell duals just don't happen in most games. And if your players are getting carried away with the counterspells, well they can only have a number of counterspells equal to the party members. The DM can have many many more. As a player, I am perfectly happy to allow an enemy mage counterspell me. That allows the party fighter/monk/barbarian/etc. another opportunity to burn them down without taking damage in return.

Nobody uses counterspell in 3.x/Pathfinder because the price of admission is too high. This is what you are doing is making the price of admission too high. I have to use a 3rd level spell slot and take damage on top of that? No thanks. I have much better things to do with that slot than inflict damage on myself for a marginal gain at best. This is now a desperation move for a wizard.

IMHO, Counterspell is fine as written. All of the "issues" brought up in this thread are not concerns for 90% of the tables out there since at most they will have one character that can cast counterspell in a party.

Garthanos · Jul 24, 2019

WaterRabbit said:
So? My wizard, who isn't going to be in the same AoE for fireball as the fighter, is instead going to use their spell to kill the enemy wizard instead of wasting my 3rd level slot to take damage when I have a whole lot less HP than the fighter.

You see this whole discussion is such a marginal issue. In D&D, offense is king.

I was pointing out that having snapback/whiplash when you successfully countered an enemy spell made it better because it advanced the fight. It now occurs to me if you use a higher level slot it should do more than just petty whiplash, thank you for your thoughts.

DND_Reborn · Jul 24, 2019

WaterRabbit said:
So? My wizard, who isn't going to be in the same AoE for fireball as the fighter, is instead going to use their spell to kill the enemy wizard instead of wasting my 3rd level slot to take damage when I have a whole lot less HP than the fighter.

You see this whole discussion is such a marginal issue. In D&D, offense is king. Like most turn-based games it is better to use your actions and resources to burn down the enemy as fast a possible instead of trying to counter them. Counterspell duals just don't happen in most games. And if your players are getting carried away with the counterspells, well they can only have a number of counterspells equal to the party members. The DM can have many many more. As a player, I am perfectly happy to allow an enemy mage counterspell me. That allows the party fighter/monk/barbarian/etc. another opportunity to burn them down without taking damage in return.

Nobody uses counterspell in 3.x/Pathfinder because the price of admission is too high. This is what you are doing is making the price of admission too high. I have to use a 3rd level spell slot and take damage on top of that? No thanks. I have much better things to do with that slot than inflict damage on myself for a marginal gain at best. This is now a desperation move for a wizard.

IMHO, Counterspell is fine as written. All of the "issues" brought up in this thread are not concerns for 90% of the tables out there since at most they will have one character that can cast counterspell in a party.

I see your point, and agree with some of it, but when that enemy mage counters your spell, it is only his reaction. Nothing is preventing him (assuming he has some slots left) from opening a world of hurt on every one else.

I would hardly call a 84 to 6 trade-off marginal. If you aren't in a place you can rest, think of all the resources restoring that many HP will cost!!! I don't expect casters to counterspell everything, so in some ways it is a desperation move when it happens, or very strategic to help the party in all kinds of way.

Oh, and there are definitely times, especially when you are going against an smart enemy mage-type, they WILL find the opportunity to hit the whole party at once. If your DM is more generous with his enemy caster-types, lucky you. Ours is a pain-in-the-butt and our table generally panics when we face an enemy caster, particularly if they are ALONE! We expect a world of pain at that point...

Otherwise, we were generally fine with Counterspell, but added a roll for lower level spells instead of auto-cancel. I just suggested the psychic damage option for those who want to speed things up even more and remove the roll.

Garthanos · Jul 24, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Otherwise, we were generally fine with Counterspell, but added a roll for lower level spells instead of auto-cancel. I just suggested the psychic damage option for those who want to speed things up even more and remove the roll.

The NO roll success is an interesting option particularly if it was a choice... Maybe have a take your chances or take some heat.

Warmaster Horus · Jul 24, 2019

Maxperson said:
In my idea I used other bonuses to differentiate things. However, I don't think magic resistance should play any role at all. The target is the spell, not the creature casting the spell.

Wrong, the target is the caster (has been Sage Advice clarified).