D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Mort]

Maybe give your daughter a break on a first DM and not break out the counterspells, and let her enjoy the experience of lobbing some fireballs at your PC? Does it really matter if you can’t counterspell.

Injecting ambiguity where there wasn't before is rarely a good way to go (especially if there is a better way).

As @Blue stated - the problem could go beyond counterspell. Off the top of my head: Ancient Paladin's 7th level aura and the spell Globe of Invulnerability suddenly become less useful - or more ambiguous.

Is it easy to rule around? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's not irritating.

Further, the whole goal seams to be to make monsters more streamlined and easy to run (especially for first time players) which is a GREAT goal. but it's worth exploring unintended consequences to make sure that goal is actually accomplished.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Is it easy to rule around? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's not irritating.

It's particularly annoying as the goal of this change appears to have been to make things easier for DMs by including all the info needed to run a monster in combat in the stat block. But instead they're adding extra work for the DM to rule if a particular NPC ability should count as a spell and if so at what level.

This is nothing short of an Epic Fail in game design. I hope this is not a sign of things to come, or we'll soon see the first "5e" OSR retroclones...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Excuse me, I took this as your assumed default:

If that isn't your assumed default, then ... hmmm. Okay, reevaluating while reading it as not your assumed stance, I think then you are saying the rules don't cover it at all and rulings must be made. Is that more correct? If so, my apologies - I thought you were saying that sicne the rules don't cover it, spells were automatically known.

Interesting, you are saying the whole book is optional. Okay, I can understand that stance. But we at least have guidance on what the designers think from it.

“It’s up to the DM, and equally valid to rule any number of ways” is my stance, yes. I had thought it was clearly expressed in the post in question, but I guess not.

As for the book, I don’t think it can even be assumed to represent RAI or even how the designer think it should work. It seems to me presented more as a solution for DMs that find Counterspell too powerful, or who just want specific rules for “spellcraft checks”. Just like the knot tying rules presented in the same chapter. I’m nearly certain JC doesn’t think the game needs those rules, they’re there because a decent number of people asked for them.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

How is this,

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

more difficult than this?

Fiery Explosion Standard Action. Range 150ft. 8d6 Damage in a 20ft-radius-sphere. Dexterity Save for half damage.

Seems to me that both are equally easy for the DM to use on the fly.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes. It makes sense that a primal flame being from Hell would be able to just hurl fire as a standard action, rather than having a spell that mortals have. That mage you're about to fight, though, should have the spell fireball, not fiery explosion the action.

If they were going to make the change to all creatures with spells, then they would have just taken the far easier route of removing Counterspell from the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but do you think those feel like spells in the same way a fiery explosion does? Blasty evocations are the purest expression of what defines a spell in D&D style fiction.

I disagree. A non-spell blasty explosion hurled by a fire elemental feels the opposite of a spell. Why should a being of pure fire have to pull out bat poo and incant a spell to hurl blasty explosion?

 

[Maxperson]

I haven't played Magic in a long time, but when I did I played primarily blue decks for precisely this reason. Control/negation abilities are fun.

But only for the blue player. Back when I had my big blue, mox lotus, dual land, sinkhole and other land destruction deck, it as lots of fun for me to kill people with black vice as I kept them completely landless. Not so much fun for them.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suspect these ambiguities will likely be cleaned up in 50AE. In the meantime, yeah, we’ll have to rely on rulings. But I kinda think that’s fine? Rulings not rules was one of the selling points of 5e.

 

[Scribe]

Yes. It makes sense that a primal flame being from Hell would be able to just hurl fire as a standard action, rather than having a spell that mortals have. That mage you're about to fight, though, should have the spell fireball, not fiery explosion the action

I don't even accept that. Even on a fire elemental or something.

Let the game universe function in an internally consistent way, there is no reason it shouldn't.

If the fire elemental 'knows' Fireball innately, fine, but it's still using the same process of creating the fireball.

Otherwise it's needlessly over complicated.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't even accept that. Even on a fire elemental or something.

Let the game universe function in an internally consistent way, there is no reason it shouldn't.

Other than reasonability. It's not really reasonable to expect a fire creature to have to cast as spell to create fire. That right there is a reason why it shouldn't function like a spell. Also, that internal consistency you are mentioning is a myth. We don't require Medusa to incant a stone to flesh spell to turn her enemies to stone. Deathknight's have been able to hurl a Hellfire Orb as an action 1/day. range 120, 20' radius sphere, 10d6 damage with a dex save. That's been around in the MM since 5e began. As has the Balor action ability to teleport 120 feet without having to cast Dimension Door or some other transport spell.

Have you allowed those to be countered this entire time? Abilities like that are all over the place. These changes are just correcting category errors for those abilities that should have been actions this whole time, but design put into the spell category.