-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell
- Thread starter Warmaster Horus
- Start date
Fanaelialae
Legend
As an aside, have you folks considered the pros of this change?
It's a significant boost to trickery magic if the DM allowed free identification of spells prior to this rule.
There's a significant difference between everyone at the table rolling Arcana whenever a spell is cast (someone is likely to succeed) and everyone having to weigh whether it is worth their reaction to do so. Illusion spells, such as mislead, become viable in the latter case, while they are functionally useless in the former. If you're trying to trick the enemy into thinking you just summoned a flock of giant owls (because you're hoping they will waste their attacks or perhaps back off) then it's probably not going to work if everyone on the enemy team all get checks to determine that you cast an illusion spell.
Personally, I think I'm going to use a slightly more convoluted approach myself. It requires a good check to both identify and counterspell, otherwise you get a choice between the two. Here's a first draft:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast uses your reaction, and requires a DC 10 + spell level arcana check. If you beat the check by 5 or more, you can also cast a reaction spell as part of the same reaction. If you succeeded but but do not beat the check by 5 or more, you can still choose to cast a reaction spell but must do so before being told what spell is being cast. If you fail, you can still cast a reaction spell, but do not learn what spell was being cast.
The language needs to be cleaned up, but I think you get the gist.
It's a significant boost to trickery magic if the DM allowed free identification of spells prior to this rule.
There's a significant difference between everyone at the table rolling Arcana whenever a spell is cast (someone is likely to succeed) and everyone having to weigh whether it is worth their reaction to do so. Illusion spells, such as mislead, become viable in the latter case, while they are functionally useless in the former. If you're trying to trick the enemy into thinking you just summoned a flock of giant owls (because you're hoping they will waste their attacks or perhaps back off) then it's probably not going to work if everyone on the enemy team all get checks to determine that you cast an illusion spell.
Personally, I think I'm going to use a slightly more convoluted approach myself. It requires a good check to both identify and counterspell, otherwise you get a choice between the two. Here's a first draft:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast uses your reaction, and requires a DC 10 + spell level arcana check. If you beat the check by 5 or more, you can also cast a reaction spell as part of the same reaction. If you succeeded but but do not beat the check by 5 or more, you can still choose to cast a reaction spell but must do so before being told what spell is being cast. If you fail, you can still cast a reaction spell, but do not learn what spell was being cast.
The language needs to be cleaned up, but I think you get the gist.
CapnZapp
Legend
Sure this isn't a solution looking for a problem?
I think most DMs only stop for the "identify" stage when a player has Counterspell at the ready.
To me, it kind of goes without saying that illusions and other trickery isn't trivially identified.
This XGE suggestion has nothing to do with that. Even if you run Counterspell "normally" (that is, without risk of wasting it on a minor spell) I would assume a DM to not reveal the true nature of an illusion...
I see no reason to conclude "functionally useless in the former". That just sound like you want a justification for the XGE suggestion.
And to that I say: use that suggestion because you WANT to, not because you've persuaded yourself you NEED to. ☺
Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
Fanaelialae
Legend
Given that there was no official rule for this prior to now, no, I don't think so.
So when an enemy caster casts a spell that doesn't have any obvious effect, players don't want to know what it did? That doesn't jive with my experience, but YMMV.
Could give me an example of how you would do this with Mislead?
Use it for whatever reason you choose, or not. As I said in the post you quoted, I'm using a modified version myself.
Suggesting that I or others have persuaded our/themselves that we need to use it seems a bit rude to me, however. Just to set your mind at ease, I assure you, if I'm using a rule it's because I've given it serious thought and I want to use it.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
I've had several games that included 'Counterspell Volleys' in the recent past. You know, Caster A casts a spell determined to be of threat, Caster B responds with a Counterspell, Caster A Counterspells back, Caster C counters that Counterspell, Caster D enters the fray with their own Counterspell in support of Caster A, ad nauseum. Some might think this 'bogs down' combat but I've enjoyed it. It gives spell casting a bit of action flavor you usually associate with melee combat. It also burns spell slots like crazy as spells and counters fly downrange.
To me it presents a cool wizard's duel feeling to magical combat, reminiscent to Harry Potter, et al. There's risk - what spell slot do I cast at? Can I make that ability check roll if I go too low? Will I need that spell slot later? There's strategy - do I open with a lower level, but useful spell and hope to draw out a Counterspell, then the other caster later in initiative will be clear to cast their big gun? Knowing what spell is being cast adds tension to the situation because you know what's at stake at the moment, whereas not knowing only adds a bit of wait-and-see suspense.
I think it boils down to what the players and DM prefer in a game. I appreciate the optional rule but I wish they would of included one in Xanathar's for identifying without using a reaction to enable the more 'pro-active' use of Counterspell, too.
To me it presents a cool wizard's duel feeling to magical combat, reminiscent to Harry Potter, et al. There's risk - what spell slot do I cast at? Can I make that ability check roll if I go too low? Will I need that spell slot later? There's strategy - do I open with a lower level, but useful spell and hope to draw out a Counterspell, then the other caster later in initiative will be clear to cast their big gun? Knowing what spell is being cast adds tension to the situation because you know what's at stake at the moment, whereas not knowing only adds a bit of wait-and-see suspense.
I think it boils down to what the players and DM prefer in a game. I appreciate the optional rule but I wish they would of included one in Xanathar's for identifying without using a reaction to enable the more 'pro-active' use of Counterspell, too.
This means your about to say something offensive, right?
Ah, there it is. "The problem isn't the rule, it's the players (or DM's) who would take advantage of the VERY OBVIOUS exploit that using this optional rule would allow."
Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
The rule doesn't solve anything, makes the game slower and more cumbersome, and opens up an exploit. No thanks.
Fanaelialae
Legend
This means your about to say something offensive, right?
Ah, there it is. "The problem isn't the rule, it's the players (or DM's) who would take advantage of the VERY OBVIOUS exploit that using this optional rule would allow."
Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
The rule doesn't solve anything, makes the game slower and more cumbersome, and opens up an exploit. No thanks.
No, it means I'm about to say something that might be construed as offensive, and I am informing you that I do not mean any offense by it. If you choose to take offense anyway, I'm sorry but that's on you.
I firmly believe that cheating at the table is not a rules problem. It's a people problem. Having a cheater at your table doesn't make you a bad player or DM, unless you are that cheater, but expecting the rules to solve your problem is a bit misguided IMO.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
It's a bit of both, in my experience. A weak rules set that provides opportunities for fudging creates temptation.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the Internet!
