D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Ancalagon]

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.

in 2nd ed, our 2 fighters had magical daggers to maximize chance of countering evil wizards, for the improved initiative speed. It was tough being a spellcaster!

 

[Ancalagon]

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

Sorry about that, let me try again.

So you said that in some cases it's clear when it's a real spells (a sorcerer) vs when it's just some innate ability, like a devil's blast of fire (or even more so, a dragon's breath weapons).

But there are many edge cases where it may not be clear if monster X's blast of fire is a spell or an innate ability. If a fae charms you, is that inate or a spell? I hope it will be explicitly stated.

 

[jasper]

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?

Ah ha. I see you went to Paulie Cool school for wizardy school Hairy Potter. Ha aha ha ha I went to Never PLease Cool kids school. I know you spells but you don't know mine. HA HA hA.
WOULD KINDLY PLEASE QUIT HAVING YOUR FIGHTER HIT ME While I am Mon Toe Logging. See there is a quick and dirty narrative.

 

[guachi]

These new stat blocks seem very poorly thought out, as others have mentioned. When I've converted old modules to 5e I summarize the monster stat blocks in an Excel spreadsheet and they look similar to the condensed version you'd see in 1e. With spells, it's looks a lot like what Sacrosanct posted in his fey creature example. It's short and tells you what you need to know to run the spell at the table.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry about that, let me try again.

So you said that in some cases it's clear when it's a real spells (a sorcerer) vs when it's just some innate ability, like a devil's blast of fire (or even more so, a dragon's breath weapons).

But there are many edge cases where it may not be clear if monster X's blast of fire is a spell or an innate ability. If a fae charms you, is that inate or a spell? I hope it will be explicitly stated.

The listing of Innate Spellcasting or Spellcasting will make that clear. Magical effects are either one of the two spellcasting categories or else actions like the Beholder abilities.

What I hope to see is something like.

Drow Mage

Actions:
Levitation, Darkness, Faerie Fire 1x day
Dancing Lights: at will

Spellcasting:
Insert all the spells here

 

[Scribe]

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

It appears I've been put on an ignore list, as you are talking to nobody, but yeah. Thats what this all boils down to, and I cannot imagine Wizards doesnt address it in some manner.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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."

And when the process of casting a spell is done, as well as how long it takes the eye beam to go from decision to shooting out of an eye, is up to the DM.

You’re conflating what makes sense to you as a ruling with the rules.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

View attachment 144666

Well this would be pretty ideal!

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

Ok then, should dragons stop breathing fire and cast fireball then?

 

[Scribe]

Ok then, should dragons stop breathing fire and cast fireball then?

No, because that is not a fireball, that is something that is part of their anatomy/biological function.

I realize the point you are trying to make, but its different.

A monster having an ability 'Ball of Fire' that they conjure out of the air, but its not a spell because its not 'Spell: Fireball' is just an unnecessary breakdown of the world building/system of magic and how PC's and NPC's should interact with it.

Time will tell, but if an NPC Cleric Human, has an ability which is 'Hand of Healing' that is essentially Cure Wounds, but its not a spell?

To me personally that's a grotesque failure of design.