D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Maxperson]

Semantics determined by individual DM's I'm thinking. For my, "if it's not able to be done using the natural reality of the current Prime Material Plane ('campaign world'), then it's magic". Being able to "tap into" or "understand and manipulate" is irrelevant ...the end result is "it's magic".

It doesn't matter if it's semantics or not. It's a fact of the game and a house rule to do differently. If you rule that the beholder rays can be counterspelled when they are not spells, you've changed the rules of the game.

Now I'm going to play the semantics card...

Page201, PHB:
"What is a Spell?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression."

To me, this is defining of what a 'spell', mechanically, is in the 5e game. Now, most spells in the PHB are going to be what are commonly assumed when the word "Spell" is used (re: Fireball, Dispel Magic, Gate, Polymorph, etc), to be sure. BUT...what I just quoted does NOT make that distinction; it's defining 'spell' as an expression of magic...like a Beholders eye powers.

Spells are listed as spells and have spell levels assigned to them. Spells are also in the MM are listed under spellcasting and innate spellcasting. The MM explicitly says that spells are under those two categories. Anything outside is not a spell. I reject the obviously wrong argument that the beholder rays are spells. There would be no point to naming anything a spell if you are correct, but I suspect you know that you are not.

As I semantically pointed out... spells aren't spells only.

No. You argued it, but it wasn't semantics. For instance you completely ignored the section at the beginning of the MM that lays out what spellcasting, innate spellcasting and actions are. The beholder eye ray actions are not spellcasting or innate spellcasting, and are therefore not spells.

Unless, of course, the DM rules they are. Which is cool. As I've said, I have no problem with a DM ruling that way and I'd happily play in a game where that was the case.

Nope! You must house rule your game to make them spells in order to counterspell them. This is not a ruling. It's a house rule that changes the nature of the game. It's cool that you've made a house rule like that. I certainly wouldn't, but every table is different.

And, before it goes there...it probably has already, but anyway... I DO NOT think this needs any sort of "errata". Just leave it as is and let individual DM's and groups decide how far a "spell" covers in terms of what is/isn't, well, "magic". It makes for a MUCH more interesting and diverse playing field. Differing opinions, outlooks, preferences, etc when running D&D is a GOOD THING! It should be lauded, not vilified. Well, imnsho, of course.

Man. I hate to think about what you do about the magic that is not only not able to be counterspelled, but works in antimagic areas.

In my game, yeah, you can Counterspell a Beholder's eye stalk effects... otherwise the DM would have to say "No, you can't Dispel Magic on your buddy who you believe is Charmed from the Beholders first eyestalk...because it's not magic".

Dispel Magic doesn't actually dispel magic. It only dispels spells.

Edit: Even if you house rule that beholder actions are spells, they still couldn't be counterspelled since they have no components to them and so you cannot see them being "cast.". By the time you see the eye ray streaking towards you, it's too late to counter it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Even if you house rule that beholder actions are spells, they still couldn't be counterspelled since they have no components to them and so you cannot see them being "cast.". By the time you see the eye ray streaking towards you, it's too late to counter it.

At the risk of having an argument about a hung that doesn’t matter, if you houserule that abilities that replicate spells can be counterspelled, it’s a DM call whether an eye ray can be counterspelled. Basically depends on whether you’re using the Xanathar’s Spellcasting rules or not, which are optional supplementary rules.

 

[Maxperson]

At the risk of having an argument about a hung that doesn’t matter, if you houserule that abilities that replicate spells can be counterspelled, it’s a DM call whether an eye ray can be counterspelled. Basically depends on whether you’re using the Xanathar’s Spellcasting rules or not, which are optional supplementary rules.

That's not true. The reason why they couldn't be countered with @pming's house rule is that there are no V, S or M components to beholder eye rays and you have to be able to perceive the spell to counter it. Xanathar's optional rules still require those to be present in order to perceive the caster at work and be able to use counterspell.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's not true. The reason why they couldn't be countered with @pming's house rule is that there are no V, S or M components to beholder eye rays and you have to be able to perceive the spell to counter it. Xanathar's optional rules still require those to be present in order to perceive the caster at work and be able to use counterspell.

You can see it, and it’s source. Xanathar’s rules specifically don’t allow it, but if you aren’t using those rules it’s up to the DM, because there is no direct rule for it.

 

[Maxperson]

You can see it, and it’s source. Xanathar’s rules specifically don’t allow it, but if you aren’t using those rules it’s up to the DM, because there is no direct rule for it.

Sure, but once you see it, the "casting" is done. There's nothing to counterspell any longer. At that point all you are able to do is identify the effect of the magic. Counterspell explicitly interrupts casting and can do nothing once it's done and the effect is taking place.

Edit: The direct applicable rule is of course Counterspell itself. Again, if the effect is happening, it's too late to interrupt the "casting" process of the beholder.

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

 

[Ancalagon]

Counterspell only feels powerful because of the shock factor. Mechanically speaking it's a weaker Stun.


However, yes, they really need to add "Magic" and "Spell" tags to powers and abilities of monsters going forward.

Re weaker stun: You are technically correct: if a mage was stunned, the mage cannot cast, so they are "pre-counterspelled". And while counterspell does consume a resource of the foe, I would argue that the foe's main resource is "number of rounds until the PCs have killed them", not spell slots, so again, stun seems much more superior...

... however, you also should consider the likelyhood of either happening. Almost every (all?) stunning effect requires the foe to fail a saving throw, while a counterspell is guaranteed to work (if the right level spell slot is taken).

 

[Ancalagon]

It doesn't matter what the enemy is casting. Whether it's a cantrip or a fireball, you've still shut that caster down completely for 1 of the very few rounds of life that it had.

I have to admit that there is a point there - and if the caster is very powerful, they probably aren't messing around casting ray of frost at you, they are going for maximum damage/screwing you over. If the evil wizard is casting a spell at you and you can stop it, stop it!!! Whatever it is can't be good.

However, I will counter (ha!) by noting that not knowing that the evil wizard is casting means not being sure if you have to upcast counter spell, and how much.

For example, if Evil Wizard is casting a 5th level spell at you (and your abjurer is level 9), knowing it's a level 5 spell would allow the abjurer to upcast and ensures a success. If it was a level 6 spell, there would not be a point to upcast because a level 5 slot still can fail, so you might as well stick with the default level 3 slot. So counterspelling blind does have an impact.

 

[Ancalagon]

I expect they will still be able to counterspell the sorcerer. They just wouldn't be able to counterspell the devil who has innate fire, but not really spell abilities.

I think that it will be very helpful to know which is which, I rather would not have that be guessed by the GM.

 

[Maxperson]

I have to admit that there is a point there - and if the caster is very powerful, they probably aren't messing around casting ray of frost at you, they are going for maximum damage/screwing you over. If the evil wizard is casting a spell at you and you can stop it, stop it!!! Whatever it is can't be good.

However, I will counter (ha!) by noting that not knowing that the evil wizard is casting means not being sure if you have to upcast counter spell, and how much.

For example, if Evil Wizard is casting a 5th level spell at you (and your abjurer is level 9), knowing it's a level 5 spell would allow the abjurer to upcast and ensures a success. If it was a level 6 spell, there would not be a point to upcast because a level 5 slot still can fail, so you might as well stick with the default level 3 slot. So counterspelling blind does have an impact.

Yep. As a player there have been a few times where I upcast just in case, because the party was hurt and a big spell could wreck us. Other times when we are in good shape, I've been content to risk the possibility of having to roll for success.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that it will be very helpful to know which is which, I rather would not have that be guessed by the GM.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. There are a few possibilities. Could you clarify?