D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Blue]

I feel like people are massively overreacting to this. Of the two stat blocks we've been able to make out (War Priest and Bard), neither has had the spellcasting actually removed. They still cast spells, just each is now at will or 1/day. They've been given a single spell like ability each that can be used as their attack. If the War Priest wants to banish you, flamestrike or cast hold person they're still casting a spell.

This format is already in print in the new The Wild Beyond the Witchlight adventure.

And the new book is basically collecting and updating 250+ monsters - basically every non-MM monster - to the new format.

I picked up Witchlight for my daughter to be the first hardcover adventure she DMs, and now there is a big in-world difference between foes if they have been printed in this or printed previously that as a neophyte DM she's going to have to deal with.

Sorry, the scope is much bigger than some sample stat-blocks.

 

[Blue]

But are they really "taking all offensive casting for all monsters" away?

I don't have Witchlight, so I haven't seen other stat blocks, but from the couple I have seen, it looks like NPCs still have regular spell lists with beefier spells that are counterspellable as normal. The abilities in question seem like they just replace common low-ish level spells, in order to complement other attacks with something suitably "magical" to match the theme of the monster*.

Am I wrong? Is there really more to it than that?


* There certainly are valid questions about how these interact with other spells, magic resistance, etc, though!

The stated goal was to move combat spells to ations. So, yes, anything that they will primary be using in combat now isn't a spell for things like Mage Slayer feat, Oath of Ancient's aura, and even if the DM rules it a spell, they also need to determine level for things like Counterspell or Globe of Invulnerability.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So your "Lightning Strike", can I counterspell it? What level counterspell automatically works? If it doesn't automatically work, what's the DC? If the creature is an ally and we're attacking a Rakshasa which is immune to spells of 6th level or lower, does it affect them?

Just "Spellcasting" is a good start, but it also needs a spell level.

Here's a preview of what I'm talking about. Any issues you can see (outside of shillelagh being misspelled)?

 

[Blue]

That’s an assumed “default”. There is no such actual rule.

Yeap. Which is exactly what you did when you declared it a non-problem because you assumed a default. Glad you caught it.

As a side note, the rule in Xanathar's isn't an optional rule. The introductory paragraph just says "providing clarification and new options" - not optional rules, but more things the character can choose to do.

 

[Scribe]

I really disagree. Anything designed to prevent your opponent from enjoying the game is poor design, imo.

"You doing what you want, prevents me from doing what I want."

Why should I care, in a head to head 'competitive' game, if my opponent gets to implement their plan?

I can go deep on this if you like, but it's probably off topic as it would be MTG focused.

TLDR: Action, and Reaction, is critical to provide player agency and choice. A resource driven game requires this even more.

 

[Blue]

Here's a preview of what I'm talking about. Any issues you can see (outside of shillelagh being misspelled)?

View attachment 144666

This has everything needed, perfect. Spellcasting (important for Mage Slayer, Oath of Ancients aura, etc) and the level (important for Counterspell, globe of Invulnerability, creature features like the Rakash's immunity to spells below a certain level).

I wish this is how they published it in Witchlight, it's got everything handy.

 

[King Brad]

I've never understood the hate for counterspell. It's just a fun 'gotcha' moment between the players which adds more complexity to an otherwise straightforward game. Same with LRs. I think the people who get bent out of shape about them just don't like being told 'no' and/or have never done anything competitive like a sport before.

I liken it to american football. The quarterback doesn't throw a fit when he gets taken down before he can pass, he dusts himself off and goes. "okay, lets try again.'

As for the "it ruins my encounters by shutting down my threats." Good. That's what the spell, and the players, are supposed to be doing. If you don't like that, make more dynamic encounters where not everything hinges on a single enemy casting a single spell. It isn't that hard. I do it every week.

I understand though that I may be on the out with opinion, as I also think 'fun' is the worst word in game design.

 

[billd91]

Only for the person playing them. Not so much on the other side.

If you like to use something, be it a weapon or a spell, against your opponents, is it not fair game to use against you? Does it cause problems if it is used in that way? Or should your side be the only ones able to do that to your opponents?

There's a lot here that depends on how you like to play. For some gamers, the level playing field is fine - you live by the counterspell, you die by the counterspell. It's part of the fun of the game.

But there are other gamers who really don't like to be stymied by anything - obstacles like this are frustrating and not fun. And I think that comes up in quite a few threads around here ranging from not liking being dominated/charmed/held, or not liking wasting turns trying to set up a powerful combination, or wasting turns not affecting their target.

I think the game has changed a lot over the editions to keep this style of player happy compared to earlier editions, hence some players claiming the game is easy mode. I don't agree with the easy mode assessment and appreciate many of the efforts made to make the game interesting without making taking a player completely out of the action due to a single bad die roll or two (now, a string of bad rolls can still be frustrating, but I'm OK with that because that's frustration at my luck, not some unfair rule). But there's only so far I'm really willing to entertain these concerns before my eyes start rolling. It's a game - sometimes you won't be on the winning side. Sometimes you'll get beat or take a beating. Some opponents are going to be particularly frustrating just as others will be easy or tailor made for you to beat up on them. If you're getting too many of the former because the DM has some idea in his or her head that you have to be CHALLENGED!!1! 24/7, 365.25 days a year, then maybe tell them to lay off a bit or you'll find another game because they don't know squat about good pacing.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The stated goal was to move combat spells to ations. So, yes, anything that they will primary be using in combat now isn't a spell for things like Mage Slayer feat, Oath of Ancient's aura, and even if the DM rules it a spell, they also need to determine level for things like Counterspell or Globe of Invulnerability.

Personally I have had a quick look at the statblocks in Wild Beyond... and I would rule the actions as spells for Mage Slayer, Oath of the Ancients and most of them I would not rule as higher than level 3 for counterspell or Globe of Invulnerability. For sanity sake I might rule as level 3 or lower in all cases.
On further consideration I think that I will go that they are spells as for as Mage Slayer and oath of the Ancients and level 3 as for Globe of Invulnerability but they are subtle spells as far as Counterspell goes. I think that preserves my sanity, nerfs counter spell slightly and is a reasonable compromise.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeap. Which is exactly what you did when you declared it a non-problem because you assumed a default. Glad you caught it.

I did no such thing, and I find little to respect in this sort of obnoxious attempt at a gotcha reversal.
I assumed no default. That is literally my point. There isn't one. It's up to the DM.

As a side note, the rule in Xanathar's isn't an optional rule. The introductory paragraph just says "providing clarification and new options" - not optional rules, but more things the character can choose to do.

Yes, it is. In 5e only the core books are, well, core. Everything else is optional.