D&D 5E Counterspell what do people think?

[Garthanos]

I like to think of the story side of acquiring abilities (players can have some special story for why their characters learn something which is otherwise rare)

 

[Aldarc]

I think needing the exact spell is too restrictive. 3e did that and I never once saw counterspell being used. If it were tied to school, I could see it being used. Maybe make it a class feature that allows a reaction to stop a spell of the same level and school. You'd need to have a spell of that school and level prepared, and you'd have to allow at least a limited arcana check to determine spell level as a part of the reaction, which should be fine since it's not a full spellcrafting.

I'm kinda okay with that, but your suggestion is certainly more flexible, so that's also worth considering.

 

[Sadras]

I think needing the exact spell is too restrictive. 3e did that and I never once saw counterspell being used. If it were tied to school, I could see it being used. Maybe make it a class feature that allows a reaction to stop a spell of the same level and school. You'd need to have a spell of that school and level prepared, and you'd have to allow at least a limited arcana check to determine spell level as a part of the reaction, which should be fine since it's not a full spellcrafting.

I take it then you don't then use the reaction cost to identify spell being cast right?

 

[WaterRabbit]

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.

I was pointing out the opposite corner case and my assumption was that the enemy didn't have Counterspell available. It is not that the logic is mortally flawed, it is that counterspell is somehow a great spell that needs to encumbered with more restrictions on it than already exist. As I pointed out, having multiple party members with counterspell is a corner case. A mild perusal of class popularity supports that supposition.

There has been really zero justification in this thread for adding more restrictions to a spell that has very limited utility to begin with. There are only a few very extreme corner cases in which one could claim there is a "problem" -- a problem that is easily solved by encounter design if necessary.

Change for Change sake isn't "middle ground".

Based upon RAW, you have no idea as to what spell you are countering since it takes your reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast in the first place. You also have no idea as to the level of the spell being cast either (ok if you don't have to make a roll you know it was your spell level or lower). So you are going to gamble with a 3rd level spell slot (or higher) to shut down a spell that may or may not be worth it? Congrats, you just countered a spell. But you also don't know what spell you have countered either. So you could have counter a fireball, conjure animals or just a fire bolt.

The opposing caster could just keep casting light over and over again to force your counterspell happy party to waste their spell slots. There are 42 "official" cantrips, 72 1st level spells, 71 2nd level spells, and 62 3rd level spells that can be countered without a roll. If you can figure out the type of spellcaster you can narrow that list down somewhat, but still you literally have no way of knowing what spell is being cast / countered.

Round 1
DM: An enemy starts to cast a spell
Player Reaction: I counterspell it
Player: Cast Spell
Enemy Reaction: Counters it

Round 2
DM: An enemy starts to cast a spell
Player Reaction: I counterspell it
Player: Cast Spell
Enemy Reaction: Counters it

Round 3
DM: An enemy starts to cast a spell
Player: I am out of counters
DM: Boom, fireball everyone make a save.

All that has happened is that the two spell casters are out of the fight until they run out of spell slots. So if the party is facing two spell casters would counterspell be useful? Player only as one reaction per turn and still has no idea what spell was cast or countered. A smart player who faces enemies who can counter him has plenty of counter measures to prevent the use of the spell (you do have ranks in Stealth I hope, at the very minimum.)

All of the hand wringing over the supposed power of the spell is just white room concerns. In the action economy, the spell just isn't that powerful. Counterspell adds an interesting poker / bluff component to the game and it might actually get used once in a while compared to previous editions. That is about it.

 

[Shadowdweller]

deleted

 

[Lanefan]

You don't see PC negation as a problem?

Not at all.

I do. I don't think a player should be frustrated at not being able to act for X rounds, because an NPC or NPCs are shutting him down. It's less of an issue on the DM side since I have unlimited creatures and am generally playing multiple creatures.

What's good for one side is good for the other: if the PCs can negate the NPCs then the same should be true in reverse.

 

[Ganders]

My big issue with counterspell is that it uses a reaction (casters rarely use their reaction for anything else, not even opportunity attacks). It's often just about as effective as a fighter's Action Surge in terms of action economy. Yes, that does seem like an appropriate comparison/analogy.

But I'd rather posit a different thought experiment: What if it wasn't just spells that could be countered? How about a counter-movement ability that uses a reaction to negate an opponent's movement for the turn? How about a counter-attack ability that uses a reaction to negate an opponent's melee attack(s)?

I honestly consider it difficult to consider the real effect of counterspell on the game without also pondering counter-attack and counter-movement.

Would those be good, fun, additions to the game? Or would they just disrupt plans and frustrate players (and DMs)? If those are a good idea, why haven't they been added to the game; and if they are a bad idea why is counterspell not just as bad?

 

[lall]

A tricky part is not knowing whether you should counter or not, which is usually a question of what spell is being cast. (Due to Counterspell, our table now goes with “I’m casting a spell, does anyone counter? Rather than “I cast Spell X.”)

I think in Xanathar’s, they give an option to identify the spell as an ability check and as a reaction. So not only could many spell slots be burned in a Counterspell chain, but many reactions could be burned as well. Due to countering of Counterspell, I only take Counterspell when I play a sorcerer, as they can counter using Subtle Spell and not be countered themselves. Or, if they’re in the 61’ to 120’ range, they can counter if they have Distant Spell, though they risk being countered in that case.

 

[Garthanos]

All of the hand wringing over the supposed power of the spell is just white room concerns. In the action economy, the spell just isn't that powerful. Counterspell adds an interesting poker / bluff component to the game and it might actually get used once in a while compared to previous editions. That is about it.

Nods my white room decided it needed to be more interesting... it does indeed potentially take mages out of the combat and drain resources way too much which might be a self fixing issue but I like the option of doing snap back damage particularly if you put more investment in it than the other guy you can deliver some pain that progresses the fight.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh its definitely balanced as long as the DM has npcs counter-spelling without knowing the spell cast and likely spell power and doesn't use information about the character and player past behavior to allow the NPC more info than they should have -- how do you decide the slots npc casts counterspell at which is fair? At some level all well and good in that regards. Is it fun to have a PC voluntarily taking their own contribution off the mat in a betting game? well maybe this is a case where I think the user choice presides. But rounding up a little on the bang for the users buck being a little more certain in case they over bet sounds fun to me a bit of a bribe in a sense.