D&D 5E Counterspell what do people think?

[WaterRabbit]

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.

So this is sort of a false premise in my mind. 84 points of damage (in your example) doesn't mean anything if no-one goes down. The 3rd level spell slot when used offensively will prevent a lot more damage than that. Say you are facing 6 mages each going to cast a fireball. You can only stop one with counter spell but you can kill all of them potentially with your own fireball or putting haste on your fighters or or or.

So my point is that counterspell is already very situational and putting more restrictions on it means it will be used less. You might as well go back to 3.x rules at that point where you can counter any spell as long as you have that spell prepared. So fireball can be counter with fireball; horrid wilting can be counter with horrid wilting and so forth.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I just checked the Sage Advice compendium and I don't see that at all. Just for the sake of argument, though, I'll treat it as accurate. All this does is present us with a situation where the standard rules result in nonsense. You now have a spell which has to target a creature, not actually affecting the creature with an ounce of magic, yet still having to contend with magic resistance that's entirely on the creature. All the magic is against the spell being cast, despite the "target."


Maybe you're okay with that kind of silliness, but I like my game to make sense. Even if that the Sage Advice says it targets a creature, I would not allow resistance to play a part. Counterspell "targets" the spell, not the creature, despite the rules not allowing spells to be targets.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So this is sort of a false premise in my mind. 84 points of damage (in your example) doesn't mean anything if no-one goes down. The 3rd level spell slot when used offensively will prevent a lot more damage than that. Say you are facing 6 mages each going to cast a fireball. You can only stop one with counter spell but you can kill all of them potentially with your own fireball or putting haste on your fighters or or or.

So my point is that counterspell is already very situational and putting more restrictions on it means it will be used less. You might as well go back to 3.x rules at that point where you can counter any spell as long as you have that spell prepared. So fireball can be counter with fireball; horrid wilting can be counter with horrid wilting and so forth.

Well, as I said before, how important counterspelling is often depends on the scenario and resources. In my example, it would take 6-12 spell levels to heal that much damage. And although I agree in general that offense is KING in D&D, there are times when the best defense is the best offense.

In your scenario of facing 6 mages, one of them will probably counter not only your fireball, but your counterspell to theirs as well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Thinking a bit about this today, I would increase the psychic damage multiplier. I mean, at 3x spell level, that is only 27 points of psychic damage to stop a 9th-level spell! Originally, I was thinking 5x but thought it might be so much to turn people off from the idea, now I think it was more accurately. 45 points to stop a 9th-level spell is still cheap in my book, but a huge hit to the caster!

I doubt we'll ever use anything like this as I like uncertainty of the roll. If I did incorporate damage, maybe it will allow advantage on the check to counter the spell... *shrug*

 

[Maxperson]

So this is sort of a false premise in my mind. 84 points of damage (in your example) doesn't mean anything if no-one goes down. The 3rd level spell slot when used offensively will prevent a lot more damage than that. Say you are facing 6 mages each going to cast a fireball. You can only stop one with counter spell but you can kill all of them potentially with your own fireball or putting haste on your fighters or or or.

So my point is that counterspell is already very situational and putting more restrictions on it means it will be used less. You might as well go back to 3.x rules at that point where you can counter any spell as long as you have that spell prepared. So fireball can be counter with fireball; horrid wilting can be counter with horrid wilting and so forth.

So if you set up a corner case scenario where a fireball can take out all of the enemy, which are all spellcasters, counterspell doesn't work well. Well, you're right. In that corner case it doesn't. In a normal combat where there are 1 or 2 enemy casters, you are better off stopping what they are doing most of the time. Especially in 5e where things have more hit points, so a fireball is not likely to put the enemy down like that. Actually, in your corner case the party gets destroyed by only 5 fireballs, not 6. The 6th caster is going to be counterspelling your fireball.

Your logic with the extra restrictions is also mortally flawed. Some restrictions =/= the stifling restrictions of 3e. There is a middle ground.

 

[Maxperson]

Thinking a bit about this today, I would increase the psychic damage multiplier. I mean, at 3x spell level, that is only 27 points of psychic damage to stop a 9th-level spell! Originally, I was thinking 5x but thought it might be so much to turn people off from the idea, now I think it was more accurately. 45 points to stop a 9th-level spell is still cheap in my book, but a huge hit to the caster!

I doubt we'll ever use anything like this as I like uncertainty of the roll. If I did incorporate damage, maybe it will allow advantage on the check to counter the spell... *shrug*

I was thinking instead of damage, use initiative. Since it's a reaction, it can slow the caster down by lowering his initiative by the level of the spell countered. If you hit 0, you lose your next turn and reset to initiative 10. You'll rarely lose a turn, but it can happen.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I was thinking instead of damage, use initiative. Since it's a reaction, it can slow the caster down by lowering his initiative by the level of the spell countered. If you hit 0, you lose your next turn and reset to initiative 10. You'll rarely lose a turn, but it can happen.

Hmm... I was also thinking about the idea of limiting the caster of the counterspell to only a cantrip until the end of their next turn. That way, even though it is a reaction, it counts as their "spell" for the round.

I sort of like that... I might do something like that for all reaction-timed spells...

 

[Maxperson]

Hmm... I was also thinking about the idea of limiting the caster of the counterspell to only a cantrip until the end of their next turn. That way, even though it is a reaction, it counts as their "spell" for the round.

I sort of like that... I might do something like that for all reaction-timed spells...

I think that might be a little harsh. Reaction spells in general don't bother me. Most of them are not in the same league as counterspell, which is really the only must have that I've seen. I think it's probably better to just spot fix the overpowered reaction spell and leave the rest alone.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think that might be a little harsh. Reaction spells in general don't bother me. Most of them are not in the same league as counterspell, which is really the only must have that I've seen. I think it's probably better to just spot fix the overpowered reaction spell and leave the rest alone.

Yeah, I will have to think about it. It will give me something to do at work tomorrow LOL!

 

[Shadowdweller]

I quite like counterspell...particularly when used with all the appropriate limitations, like not always being sure which spell the enemy is casting and strictly following the 60 foot range coupled with sight/hearing requirements. It becomes kind of a cool guessing game with fake-outs, resource-wars, etc. It IS pretty situational though. My guilty confession is that I find Dispel Magic to be more generally useful...since it can be used more frequently (depending on DM) after the effects have been identified; and can be used on long-standing magic effects that the caster wasn't around to witness being cast.