D&D 5E Counterspell what do people think?

[Maxperson]

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

My view is that if I'm going to narrow the use of counterspell to the point where it won't be used, I might as well just get rid of the ability. I think if it's going to exist, then it needs to be in a form that is at least going to be used sometimes.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Of course I do. That's why I said, " 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." If the player wants to know the actual spell, he's going to have to use his reaction to make the arcana check. I also would not allow the player to back out of counterspelling once he knows what level the spell is. It would all be part of the same act.

Alternatively, you can just have the player announce counterspell and if the player has a slot open of the level and school of the type of spell being cast, it is automatically expended.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

We started playing 5e about a year ago and have had two campaigns. I'm two for two on multiple members with the spell. As for your assumption that 6 wizards don't have the spell among them, well, it's far more likely that all 6 will have it than none of them.

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.

That's just plain false. There has been a lot of justification for it. YOU just don't agree with them. Your opinion doesn't negate the justification.

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

And you're just tilting at windmills with this one. Nobody has argued for change for the sake of change. Not one person.

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.

It's pretty much always worth it. If you are rendering 1 enemy absolutely useless for the combat in a game where encounters are balanced, you win. He does nothing while everyone on your side does something.

The opposing caster could just keep casting light over and over again to force your counterspell happy party to waste their spell slots.

This is just a dumb tactic. It's suicide. It amounts to, "Hey, let me take myself out of the fight so I can be killed, just to screw with the enemy wizard." As I said before, I play games that make sense, and unless I know the caster has a death wish, or is being controlled as to commit suicide, the NPC is not going to engage in this kind of absurdly suicidal behavior. If a player wants to waste his actions like that, he can.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at all.

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.

If there was a roll for it and it was just the potential for negation, that's different. Or if it is just for one round. This game is about fun, though, and taking a PC out of the fight or almost all of the fight is both boring and frustrating for the player. I agree about both sides needing to be equal, though. Even though as DM I don't have the same kind of frustration as the players since I'm controlling a lot more.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You don't see PC negation as a problem? 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.

Preventing NPC wizards from annihilating the party with their spells is hardly negation.

 

[Maxperson]

Preventing NPC wizards from annihilating the party with their spells is hardly negation.

So first, yes it is negating that NPC wizard. He does nothing while he can't cast spells. Second, an NPC isn't a PC, so I really don't understand why you've flipped PC to NPC like that. I very specifically said "PC negation."

 

[Lanefan]

It's pretty much always worth it. If you are rendering 1 enemy absolutely useless for the combat in a game where encounters are balanced, you win. He does nothing while everyone on your side does something.

Except you, as you've taken yourself out as well in order to do the countering - at least that's how I see it, RAW be damned.

Still a good tactic in many cases, though - a major caster guarded by a troop of mooks is a common enough trope...

If there was a roll for it and it was just the potential for negation, that's different. Or if it is just for one round. This game is about fun, though, and taking a PC out of the fight or almost all of the fight is both boring and frustrating for the player.

Meh, it's an accepted thing that there's going to be times when by either luck (a bad save, or your PC got captured, or killed) or intent (your PC is waiting at camp while someone else does the scouting) you're going to be out of action for a while. I have no sympathy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So first, yes it is negating that NPC wizard. He does nothing while he can't cast spells. Second, an NPC isn't a PC, so I really don't understand why you've flipped PC to NPC like that. I very specifically said "PC negation."

I DIDN'T.

Even if the PC gets thier spell counterspelled, they still have a reaction and spell slots that they can use to counterspell enemy spells. THEY ARE NOT NEGATED BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO DO. Same with the NPC casters - they are not negated because they still have an important job to do - defending their group from PC casters.

When little children start to learn football (soccer) they all run around after the ball, leaving their goal wide open. As they gain maturity they learn that defence is just as important for the team to win.

If your wizards lack the maturity to take on a defensive role when the situation demands, I suggest you encourage them to play a fighter instead.

 

[Oofta]

I DIDN'T.

Even if the PC gets thier spell counterspelled, they still have a reaction and spell slots that they can use to counterspell enemy spells. THEY ARE NOT NEGATED BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO DO. Same with the NPC casters - they are not negated because they still have an important job to do - defending their group from PC casters.

When little children start to learn football (soccer) they all run around after the ball, leaving their goal wide open. As they gain maturity they learn that defence is just as important for the team to win.

If your wizards lack the maturity to take on a defensive role when the situation demands, I suggest you encourage them to play a fighter instead.

I'm not following. A spellcaster can't do much of anything if they can't cast spells. No defending, no assists, nada.

Maybe you've never seen a campaign were every single NPC spellcaster never got a spell off unless you gave them reasons to be unaffected by counterspell (at which point just ban the spell). I have. I saw the chain-o-counterspells enough times that it got really, really old. It's both boring and annoying. The DM couldn't plan effective encounters with spellcasters because she had no way of knowing if they were going to be anything more than a minor speed bump.

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe there's some grand secret to how a wizard can "defend the team" if they can't ever cast a spell. If so, enlighten me. Until then, ease off a bit on the all caps assertions that if you see an issue you must be infantile.

 

[Maxperson]

Except you, as you've taken yourself out as well in order to do the countering - at least that's how I see it, RAW be damned.

How do you figure? It's a reaction, so the person counterspelling can still cast spells normally on their turn. The only way you are taken out is if they also have counterspell, which takes me back to my first post where we get the lame, counter-counter-counter-counter-yada yada, until someone can finally cast something. Boooring.