D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Maxperson]

I was listening to the Sage Advice video from 09-29-21 and Crawford talks a bit about this topic. He explains that a spellcaster like Kelek will have these magical abilities, as well as spellcasting for a very specific reason. He says that the spellcasting action is for spells that are not intended for combat, while the magical actions are separated out to show the DM that these are for combat use.

What they found was that when the combat spells were mixed in with a bunch of other spells, the optimal spellcasting path for the creature to achieve its CR was hidden and many DMs were finding that their monsters were punching well below the expected CR. By pulling out the attacks and making them separate actions, WotC is helping the DMs to play these adversaries at the intended power level.

It would seem as many here have said, that they are not pulling these out because of interactions with Counterspell and other abilities. He also doesn't talk about how the new actions will interact with Counterspell and the like.

The discussion is at around the 42 minute mark.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok,

I'm comfortable say no, divine smite is not a spell and shouldn't be treated as one, just like counterspell can't/shouldn't counter a druid's wildshape (for ex.).

My problem with the current statblock (the ones being discussed) is that it takes what CLEARLY are spells and re-labels them as special abilities for the purpose of ease or expediency - and I think it causes more problems than it solves. In addition to just being sloppy.

I'd be fine if there were some thoughtful distinction between actual spellcasting and spellcasters (e.g. the "Archmage" class NPC) and creatures that have innate magical abilities (e.g. Beholder), and that the differences were labeled.

E.g...

Actions:
fiery blast (spell) Description....
hypnotic gaze (innate) Description...

 

[Mort]

I'd be fine if there were some thoughtful distinction between actual spellcasting and spellcasters (e.g. the "Archmage" class NPC) and creatures that have innate magical abilities (e.g. Beholder), and that the differences were labeled.

E.g...

Actions:
fiery blast (spell) Description....
hypnotic gaze (innate) Description...

Yes, that would work fine (thought throw in the level as well if it's a spell).

It would seem (from what @Maxperson just posted) this was the intent - just needs some refinement in execution.

 

[Zaukrie]

I was listening to the Sage Advice video from 09-29-21 and Crawford talks a bit about this topic. He explains that a spellcaster like Kelek will have these magical abilities, as well as spellcasting for a very specific reason. He says that the spellcasting action is for spells that are not intended for combat, while the magical actions are separated out to show the DM that these are for combat use.

What they found was that when the combat spells were mixed in with a bunch of other spells, the optimal spellcasting path for the creature to achieve its CR was hidden and many DMs were finding that their monsters were punching well below the expected CR. By pulling out the attacks and making them separate actions, WotC is helping the DMs to play these adversaries at the intended power level.

It would seem as many here have said, that they are not pulling these out because of interactions with Counterspell and other abilities. He also doesn't talk about how the new actions will interact with Counterspell and the like.

The discussion is at around the 42 minute mark.

We (mostly all of us) understand WHY it is happening. We (mostly all of us) don't like nerfing abilities and magic items that work in some way with or against spells. It is a super easy fix....but I'm guessing all this is already laid out and printed and we'll all have to decide at our tables if things that are 100% spells are spells or not despite how WotC prints them. This is, imo, something that should have been easily caught in testing, so I think they are aware they just nerfed a TON of things, and have decided "so what". (IMO, and, again, imo, this is about keeping the game simple. counterspell is "hard", so why bother caring about it as much as simplifying things. It's their game, they get to do that calculation.) As an experienced DM/player, I'll run them as spells at my table when I DM, and argue they should be at tables I play at also.

 

[Maxperson]

We (mostly all of us) understand WHY it is happening. We (mostly all of us) don't like nerfing abilities and magic items that work in some way with or against spells.

I have a hard time imagining that they didn't think of this. It would be very easy to put a correction/clarification in the new book coming out, explaining how to run the new actions with abilities that trigger with spells.

It is a super easy fix....but I'm guessing all this is already laid out and printed and we'll all have to decide at our tables if things that are 100% spells are spells or not despite how WotC prints them. This is, imo, something that should have been easily caught in testing, so I think they are aware they just nerfed a TON of things, and have decided "so what". (IMO, and, again, imo, this is about keeping the game simple. counterspell is "hard", so why bother caring about it as much as simplifying things. It's their game, they get to do that calculation.) As an experienced DM/player, I'll run them as spells at my table when I DM, and argue they should be at tables I play at also.

Do we know that they didn't stick in a correction/clarification? Or are we just assuming that? I haven't seen everything on the topic, so this is a genuine question.

 

[Lyxen]

Fighting in darkness IS something special. It doesn't happen that often at all. Something special being needed also is explicitly NOT "always being unable to tell", which is what you said.

No one said anything about fighting in darkness (I only mentioned someone approaching from a dark area, which is fairly frequent if there is a sneaky character around). It's funny how yourself are committing strawmans when accusing others to do it, and it's significant that you never use original quotes.

So once again, if you don't want to be called out for a Strawman, don't commit one.

And once more, please assume your positions, however controversial, and don't hide behind unjustified accusations when your position is taken apart.

But enough said, the simple fact that you are not even discussing your original position of "you're going to notice a caster" is proof enough. It's totally unsupported by RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

No one said anything about fighting in darkness (I only mentioned someone approaching from a dark area, which is fairly frequent if there is a sneaky character around). It's funny how yourself are committing strawmans when accusing others to do it, and it's significant that you never use original quotes.

This is you.

"And again, compare your initial stance "It sees you unless something special happens to keep it from being seen" and what I said which does not require something special to happen: "Again, if I try to approach someone from 100 feet away, in darkness while he is engaged in combat, will you pretend that the rules say that he will ALWAYS see me ?" Because nothing special happens, it's just a situation that happens reasonably often in combat."

Care to tell me again how you didn't say "in darkness?"

 

[Zaukrie]

I have a hard time imagining that they didn't think of this. It would be very easy to put a correction/clarification in the new book coming out, explaining how to run the new actions with abilities that trigger with spells.

Do we know that they didn't stick in a correction/clarification? Or are we just assuming that? I haven't seen everything on the topic, so this is a genuine question.

How? How would they indicate which of all the abilities a creature has are spells? I don't know either, I'm asking.

And, that's waaaaaay harder than having it in the stat block.

 

[Lyxen]

Reading Wild Beyond the Witchlight ALL (as far as I can tell) of the damaging offensive spells have been moved away from the "spells" section and into their own section with labels like chaos bolt or fiery explosions or whatever, they are not labeled spells and don't even have spell names. If all of these spells are instead special abilities:

OK, but this is only a very few spells, as far as I know most of the NPCs still have consequent spell lists which can be counterspelled, including offensive ones.

 

[Lyxen]

This is you.

"And again, compare your initial stance "It sees you unless something special happens to keep it from being seen" and what I said which does not require something special to happen: "Again, if I try to approach someone from 100 feet away, in darkness while he is engaged in combat, will you pretend that the rules say that he will ALWAYS see me ?" Because nothing special happens, it's just a situation that happens reasonably often in combat."

Care to tell me again how you didn't say "in darkness?"

Yes, the character approaching is coming from a dark area. I never said that the character engaged in combat was fighting in the dark. This is a frequent case when you have stealthy characters around, even if the fighters are in a lit area. This is not an exceptional edge case, and it does not require "something special ()to) happen".