D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Mordhau]

Here's what I don't get. Why would you give a monster "Fiery Explosions"? Why wouldn't you just write this:

Fireball [Spell V,S,M] Standard Action. Range 150ft. 8d6 Damage in a 20ft-radius-sphere. Dexterity Save for half damage.

Why can't we both have the npc spellcasters use the same spells that PCs use and have them included in monster stat blocks in a form that makes them easy for the DM to use on the fly?

 

[Dragonsbane]

It will still be in all my games, regardless of system.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Counterspell wasn't nerfed it hasn't receive an errata to modify it. It's just a small fraction of monsters newly created that have some actions over and beyond their Spellcasting feature that will not be subject to Counterspell now being written has an action.

It's nothing new there already was monsters framed this way. For exemple the Flameskull's Fire Ray and many other spell attacks action found in either monsters or NPC statblock.

 

[MarkB]

Counterspell wasn't nerfed it hasn't receive an errata to modify it. It's just a small fraction of monsters newly created that have some actions over and beyond their Spellcasting feature that will not be subject to Counterspell now being written has an action.

It's nothing new there already was monsters framed this way. For exemple the Flameskull's Fire Ray and many other spell attacks action found in either monsters or NPC statblock.

Part of the announced forthcoming revisions is that existing monster / NPC stat blocks are to be revised to this format.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Part of the announced forthcoming revisions is that existing monster / NPC stat blocks are to be revised to this format.

They will be minor changes to some but i don't expect all the spellcasting monsters and NPC of the game to receive errata to include many additional actions that mimic spells and modify their spellcasting features to remove them.

Yes Counterspell will see less uses with some enemies, but not that much.

 

[jasper]

OH Noes. The war priest gets an extra attack that does 12 or 6 on a save. And they have shorten the their spell list to once a day. I will not survive taking 12 points of damage if the war priest last three rounds. Personally I would solve the problem by just getting ride of counterspell. It didn't exist in 1 and 2E and we just sucked up the damage from the evil spell caster.

 

[Nefermandias]

OH Noes. The war priest gets an extra attack that does 12 or 6 on a save. And they have shorten the their spell list to once a day. I will not survive taking 12 points of damage if the war priest last three rounds. Personally I would solve the problem by just getting ride of counterspell. It didn't exist in 1 and 2E and we just sucked up the damage from the evil spell caster.

Nah, man. Back then it was really easy to just whack or shoot the caster before he got to finish casting the spell. Even spells with a casting time of one segment could be easily disrupted if the caster lost the initiative for that round.

 

[Gadget]

Ehh...I never thought Counterspell was a good idea anyway. All previous editions of D&D seemed to get along fine without, and I don't recall a hue and cry complaining about it or demanding it. It was a step closer to a 'game within a game' that was psionic combat. Might sound cool in theory but not so great in practice. The fact that many tables run Counterspell incorrectly, RAW, is a sign that it has problems.

That said, this is a troubling sign that WOTC does not read or care about their own rules system. I get not wanting to bog the game down with legalese and jargon for new comers, but this whole 'half-baked rules and let the DM adjudicate' way of design does get grating at times. The recent Sage ruling on invisibility comes to mind as something that is particularly insane.

 

[Krachek]

Unfortunately, all DM's are automota to whom "RAI" is a meaningless concept (according to this forum).

This subject can make a whole thread,
the hope to have one day a RAW game that fit our personal expectation of balance, precision and fun,
And the reality that we buy a game design to aim the middle ground for millions of players with various expectation and play style.

 

[TwoSix]

I have no problem with monsters using exception-based design, but this creates a real problem of narration.

A spellcaster type NPC who has a magical fiery explosion ability feels like they should be vulnerable to counterspell. It fits the tropes of both what the spell does and what the NPC is doing. How do I create a narrative around a spellcaster using an ability that isn't able to be countered? Is it some kind of wand? Is it a subtle spell?

I'm totally on-board with making NPC stat blocks easier to run, but I'm not a fan of creating an environment where only some NPC spellcaster abilities can be countered, and it isn't obvious in the story why some abilities can be countered and some cannot.