D&D 5E A tweak for Counterspell

Quartz

Hero
In 5e you can counter-counterspell a spell you are casting. What if that were not possible?

I.e. You cannot Counterspell the Counterspell that targets you or a spell that you are casting. You may still Counterspell a Counterspell targetted at another spellcaster or their spell.

Or, more generally, you cannot take a Reaction while you are executing an Action or Bonus Action when said Action is casting a spell.

To theory-justify this, it would be because you are currently casting the original spell and cannot be casting two spells at the same time.

What problem does this solve? It reduces complexity by limiting competing Counterspells.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Assuming you only have one spellcaster on each side, it means nobody ever gets to cast any spells, since each one can counter the other with impunity. The lich casts a spell, and the wizard counters it; the wizard casts a spell, and the lich counters it; and there's no reason to not counter a spell, since you can't save your reaction to force your own spell through.

Assuming there are two spellcasters in the party and one on the other side, it means the enemy can never cast spells. The lich casts a spell, and the wizard counters it; the wizard casts a spell, the lich counters it, and the bard counter-counters that. The bard casts a spell, and the lich doesn't have a reaction left, so it just goes through. I'm not sure that's much different than how it already is, though.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The Rules on Reactions are as follows (PHB pp190)
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn.
 

Oofta

Legend
With my old group, it would just mean that no spellcaster would ever be able to cast a spell unless there's mitigating circumstances.

My first thought at another option was:
If you are casting a spell and someone counters it you can boost the power of your current spell with counterspell raising it's level by 3 and following the normal rules to see if the spell still goes off.

So the counterspell from the original caster can't be counterspelled (the daisy chain effect I mentioned in the other thread). But ... it may make people feel like it wasn't worth it. So we could add
If the caster tries to boost the power of the spell but fails the resulting contest, the spell is reflected back on the original caster.

Adds a little flavor, some risk to boosting the power, counterspelling the counterspell still works most of the time but stops the conga line. Thoughts?
 


DragonBelow

Adventurer
Seems rather arbitrary to allow you to counterspell only some spells, the complexity you try to get rid of is still there. I debated applying a similar rule with my group. The reasoning being as mentioned here, you are interrupting yourself by casting counterspell in the middle of the casting of the original spell. However in the end we sort of decided against it, it might seem illogical but it gives everyone a fair shot. Just make sure to include some spellcasting Lieutenants to your BBEG if your party has multiple casters.
 


jmartkdr

First Post
I haven't seen enough counterspell binges to justify this added complexity. Counterspelling a counterspell is already a big enough cost to make it a rarely used tactic.
 

I won't allow counter counter spell, as you are in the middle of casting something.
The biggest drawback of counterspell is not being able to see the target or being more than 60ft away.

Being unseen can be accomplished with a minor illusion. Being 60ft away from the enemy spellcaster should be standard... except when you also want to coulnter spell.
So assume melee line is in the middle. Spellcasters stand back at least 40ft so you can't be easily drawn into melee.
 


Remove ads

Top