D&D 5E Counterspell what do people think?

[Paul Farquhar]

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

They can:

* Counterspell (which is frequently the only thing keeping the party from TPK)
* Force the enemy spellcaster to burn through spell slots (sorcerers are good at this with quicken spell - if an enemy blows a 3rd level spell slot countering a cantrip that's a total win) and reactions (preventing Shield and making them easier for the fighter to clobber)
* or they could try something different, like a weapon attack. Encourages players to experiment with non-cliché builds.

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 pint 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.

Nope. Never. And I have been playing for around 35 years.

I would suggest that you need to have more variety in your encounters. They only way both sides can be locked down if the number of counterspellers is equal on both sides. That's a pretty infrequent occurrence in my experience. Your evil wizard could have a couple of apprentices dedicated to making sure his spells aren't counterspelled for a start.

The DM should have a very good idea of how many counterspellers there are in the Party. Planning encounters around that is no problem at all. But encounters with spellcasters are notoriously swingy. The Party will often deal with them quickly, but if they fail to do so then it is likely disastrous.

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.​

How do you make out counterspelling is not defending the team?!
​

 

[Maxperson]

They can:

* Counterspell (which is frequently the only thing keeping the party from TPK)

Then something is wrong with the encounter system or perhaps the DM creating the encounters. One spell should not be mandatory to take in order not to TPK.

* Force the enemy spellcaster to burn through spell slots (sorcerers are good at this with quicken spell - if an enemy blows a 3rd level spell slot countering a cantrip that's a total win) and reactions (preventing Shield and making them easier for the fighter to clobber)[/quote

Being useless is not a total win.

* or they could try something different, like a weapon attack. Encourages players to experiment with non-cliché builds.

Riiiiight, because in the front lines doing miniscule damage(if the wizard even hits) is the right place for a primary spellcaster.

Nope. Never. And I have been playing for around 35 years.

This seems odd. In 5e smart players take counterspell, and with counterspell will come encounters where enemy casters never get a spell off because of it. I've seen it happen many times.

I would suggest that you need to have more variety in your encounters. They only way both sides can be locked down if the number of counterspellers is equal on both sides. That's a pretty infrequent occurrence in my experience.

Again, since smart players and NPCs take counterspell, this seems odd.

Your evil wizard could have a couple of apprentices dedicated to making sure his spells aren't counterspelled for a start.

So now you're proposing a counterspell arms race. That's DM vs. Player, which is something that is in my opinion to be avoided at all costs. The game should not be adversarial.

If a spell is causing so much disruption that the DM feels the need to engage in an arms race with the players, and the players must have it, it's a problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Then something is wrong with the encounter system or perhaps the DM creating the encounters. One spell should not be mandatory to take in order not to TPK.

It's always been the case in D&D that a single spell can potentially be decisive. That's the nature of the game and why casters are always the priority targets.

Being useless is not a total win.

It seems your definition of "useless" is "anything that does not make the enemy explode in flames". Causing the enemy to expend resources is not useless.

Riiiiight, because in the front lines doing miniscule damage(if the wizard even hits) is the right place for a primary spellcaster.

Sometimes surprise can get you a long way, and even miniscule damage can be enough to finish of weakly defended wizards. Anyway, you never heard of dwarf wizards?

This seems odd. In 5e smart players take counterspell, and with counterspell will come encounters where enemy casters never get a spell off because of it. I've seen it happen many times.

It happens, but I have never been in a campaign where it was a common occurrence. I think you perhaps would benefit from having more encounters that do not involve enemy spellcasters. If encountering spellcasters was a not a common occurrence you would find that your players would be less likely to have counterspell prepared.

Again, since smart players and NPCs take counterspell, this seems odd.

Smart players only take counterspell if they expect to be fighting spellcasters. I would say roughly 1/4 encounters in my games involve spellcasting enemies. If all your encounters involve spellcasters it's no wonder your games get tedious.

So now you're proposing a counterspell arms race. That's DM vs. Player, which is something that is in my opinion to be avoided at all costs. The game should not be adversarial.

If a spell is causing so much disruption that the DM feels the need to engage in an arms race with the players, and the players must have it, it's a problem.

No, I'm suggesting mixing it up a bit. Have more encounters with zero spellcasters, have some encounters with lots of spell casters. If you design an encounter with one spell caster assume that they will be locked down and focus on their minions, the environment, and pre-battle spells. Spell casters are usually intelligent. It's not DM-cheating for them to expect to have their spells countered and put contingencies in place.

 

[Maxperson]

It's always been the case in D&D that a single spell can potentially be decisive. That's the nature of the game and why casters are always the priority targets.

This is a deflection. People don't feel that the NEED to have a Vampiric Touch spell in order to avoid TPKs. Could it be the difference between a win and a TPK, sure. That would be a corner case, though. Counterspell is something people feel compelled to learn in order to survive and/or win more efficiently, and it's impact in a fight is generally far greater than something like Vampiric Touch.

It seems your definition of "useless" is "anything that does not make the enemy explode in flames". Causing the enemy to expend resources is not useless.

Nope! But does seem like you don't want to make an effort to understand where we are coming from.

Sometimes surprise can get you a long way, and even miniscule damage can be enough to finish of weakly defended wizards. Anyway, you never heard of dwarf wizards?

What about them? Do they do more damage with a staff and their low hit points or something?

It happens, but I have never been in a campaign where it was a common occurrence. I think you perhaps would benefit from having more encounters that do not involve enemy spellcasters. If encountering spellcasters was a not a common occurrence you would find that your players would be less likely to have counterspell prepared.

Again, I'm not an adversarial DM. I'm not going to pit myself vs. the players to win. Spellcasters are a part of the game and it would be ridiculous if the players stopped encountering them or encountered them in a greatly reduced number, due to a spell.

If I have to drastically change tactics to handle a spell, that spell is borked and needs to be changed.

Smart players only take counterspell if they expect to be fighting spellcasters. I would say roughly 1/4 encounters in my games involve spellcasting enemies. If all your encounters involve spellcasters it's no wonder your games get tedious.

1 in 4 is a lot, and it would be stupid for the players not to take counterspell if meeting casters 25% of the time. It's not as if they can't use the slot for fireball or something if they meet a non-casting group.

 

[shadowoflameth]

I like Counterspell and find it plenty useful as it is. The rules allow a spellcaster to create a spell just like he can create a magic item. If your game allows players to do this, If you want a form of Counterspell that has more adverse effects, then I would consider making it a 4th level spell instead of 3rd, and add an effect that redirects to countered spell to center on the caster. he spell now omits no targets and any effects that require concentration now require the concentration of the counter caster to maintain. As the DMG points out, if a spell seems so good everyone would want it, it's probably too potent for it's level.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is a deflection. People don't feel that the NEED to have a Vampiric Touch spell in order to avoid TPKs.

So what? Some spells are better than others, this has always been the case, and Vampiric Touch has always sucked.

But it's better than Counterspell if no one is casting spells at you.

This is the big wizard shtick. You prepare Counterspell if you expect to fight casters. You don't prepare it if you aren't. For sorcerers its a different matter. I know one sorcerer who doesn't currently have Counterspell since there is a wizard in the party and up to date one counterspeller has been sufficient.

Nope! But does seem like you don't want to make an effort to understand where we are coming from.

The impression I'm getting is your game is quite high level and largely consists of samey encounters with wizards. And your players get quickly bored with tactical play and just want to blow stuff up.

What about them? Do they do more damage with a staff and their low hit points or something?

They would do more damage with a staff (+2 Str), if they weren't wielding a battleaxe. HP (+2 Con) and AC (chainmail) aren't that ropy either.

Again, I'm not an adversarial DM.

It's not "adversarial" to use knowledge of the party to design encounters to be interesting for that party.

Nor is it "adversarial" to have intelligent enemies prepare intelligently.

If I have to drastically change tactics to handle a spell, that spell is borked and needs to be changed.

It's a bad workman who blames his tools. It may be your tactics that are borked, not the spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

It seems to me that spells require components like somatic or verbal. If you are using your math or free hand to cast a different spell then it seems reasonable to rule you can’t use that same mouth or free hand to cast counterspell.

So IMO no house rule is needed. Just an abdjuction of the rules.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It seems to me that spells require components like somatic or verbal. If you are using your math or free hand to cast a different spell then it seems reasonable to rule you can’t use that same mouth or free hand to cast counterspell.

So IMO no house rule is needed. Just an abdjuction of the rules.

Do you also rule that fighters can't use their sword to make an opportunity attack if they have used it to attack on the previous round?

If that wasn't wrong enough, Counterspell doesn't have any verbal components!

 

[Maxperson]

So what? Some spells are better than others, this has always been the case, and Vampiric Touch has always sucked.

But it's better than Counterspell if no one is casting spells at you.

This is the big wizard shtick. You prepare Counterspell if you expect to fight casters. You don't prepare it if you aren't. For sorcerers its a different matter. I know one sorcerer who doesn't currently have Counterspell since there is a wizard in the party and up to date one counterspeller has been sufficient.

That's the problem in a nutshell. There is no spell, not one, that should be so important that the group feels it has to have it. Even if only the party wizard has to take it.

The impression I'm getting is your game is quite high level and largely consists of samey encounters with wizards. And your players get quickly bored with tactical play and just want to blow stuff up.

That would be incorrect. The main group just hit 11th level, so upper mid level range, and sometimes we encounter spellcasters and sometimes we don't. Maybe 25-30% of the time. Counterspell has been a problem since 5th level, though.

I think it's telling that you think counterspell is required in order to engage in tactical play.

They would do more damage with a staff (+2 Str), if they weren't wielding a battleaxe. HP (+2 Con) and AC (chainmail) aren't that ropy either.

They don't have +2 strength. They're freaking wizards. People don't put strength up that high on wizards. There are more important stats that get the higher stat numbers.

It's a bad workman who blames his tools. It may be your tactics that are borked, not the spell.

ROFL

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you also rule that fighters can't use their sword to make an opportunity attack if they have used it to attack on the previous round?

If that wasn't wrong enough, Counterspell doesn't have any verbal components!

Of course not. But I do rule that a fighter can’t reload a hand crossbow if he doesn’t have a free hand....