D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Lyxen]

Minor? You think taking every spell that people would want to use Counterspell on, gets around class abilities designed to help against spells, etc. and making them abilities is minor? It would have been minor if they had only taken out what made sense to be an ability, rather than a spell and made those actions. For example a fire monster hurling fire as an action instead of a fireball spell. Rending several class abilities and Counterspell worthless isn't minor.

Once more, it is extremely minor, because it's only a very few spells of a very few NPCs over one complete and specific campaign that people might never play, for once, and secondary see below, it's totally specific to the way a given DM designs, places and uses his monsters and NPCs anyway. So yes, it's difficult to see more minor than this, it does not even affect the PC themselves, only something that they might not even realise or know about.

I get that their intent seems to be good, but the DM shouldn't have to reverse this change in order to make now worthless class abilities worth something again.

Or..............players who want the class abilities vs. spells to actually mean something.

This last part is utterly pointless, as the DM can decide never to use actual spellcasters for example, finding them too complex to play. Where would this leave the player ? Circumstantial abilities linked to specific abilities of monsters encountered are way more linked to encountering these monsters and actually being able to apply them than to the theory of their applicability.

 

[Lyxen]

No it isn't only NPCs and monsters. Many class abilities are now worthless as Crawford said in the video that I posted that the took every good combat spell and made them actions to let monsters punch at the appropriate CR. That means that they just invalidated every class ability that keys off of spells and Counterspell, as those abilities and Counterspell are there for the combat spells.

MANY class abilities ? Really ? How many ? How many characters are actually affected, in which percentage of the fights ? It's extremely minor at best. Moreover, get your facts straight, and read, it's not combat spells. Checked it ? Found out that it's only damaging spells ? Are these the only combat spells ? No. Now can you please be a bit more moderate in your comments ?

 

[Maxperson]

Once more, it is extremely minor, because it's only a very few spells of a very few NPCs over one complete and specific campaign that people might never play, for once, and secondary see below, it's totally specific to the way a given DM designs, places and uses his monsters and NPCs anyway. So yes, it's difficult to see more minor than this, it does not even affect the PC themselves, only something that they might not even realise or know about.

Once again, it's not extremely minor, because while it's only a few spells, it's ALL OF THE SPELLS YOU WANT TO STOP IN COMBAT. All of them. Per Crawford's words. Who cares if the NPC/Monster can still cast mending or some other non-combat spell as spells.

My position relies on Crawford's words. Your position requires him to be a liar.

 

[Maxperson]

MANY class abilities ? Really ? How many ? How many characters are actually affected, in which percentage of the fights ? It's extremely minor at best. Moreover, get your facts straight, and read, it's not combat spells. Checked it ? Found out that it's only damaging spells ? Are these the only combat spells ? No. Now can you please be a bit more moderate in your comments ?

Every class ability that keys off of spells. The ones that give resistance or advantage on saves. Counterspells. And so on. Every spell that you'd want those to work on are now worthless. Unless there is some sort of unmentioned errata to them to allow them to work on these abilities.

 

[Lyxen]

Once again, it's not extremely minor, because while it's only a few spells, it's ALL OF THE SPELLS YOU WANT TO STOP IN COMBAT. All of them.

No. Your combats must be something I don't want to participate in, if the only spell that you want stop are the damaging spells. As for me, with my halfling sorceress, my best memories of counterspelling were actually to prevent our nemesis from fleeing once more. So no, you are clearly, 100% wrong here.

Per Crawford's words. Who cares if the NPC/Monster can still cast mending or some other non-combat spell as spells.

Yes, of course, why don't you try to have slightly more varied games ? IMHO, the most dangerous spells in 5e are certainly not the damaging ones.

My position relies on Crawford's words. Your position requires him to be a liar.

You position relies clearly on very specific games and way of playing, as demonstrated on this thread since yesterday. If you take it in a less biased way, how many monsters have actual spellcasting in the books ? 5% ? 10% ? How many of these spells are converted ? Maybe 1-2 per monster (that's what we see in TWBtWL). And out of the fights were these monsters are present, in how many cases will the characters have abilities that matter, be ready and be willing to use them ? You're looking at 1% of the cases there, at most. In a full campaign level 1-10 with my sorceress (we are making a pause here before the second part), I probably used Counterspell 4-5 times at most. And again, I can't remember an instance in which I used it on a damaging spell, whereas I remember well the two times where I prevented Amelia from fleeing, once in the inn and once in her lair in the streets of Eberron.

Every class ability that keys off of spells.

Again, HOW MANY ? How many characters are affected ?

The ones that give resistance or advantage on saves.

That has nothing to do with spells in general.

Counterspells. And so on.

There is no "and so on", this is the first example of your list, and the one that some people have been screaming about.

Every spell that you'd want those to work on are now worthless. Unless there is some sort of unmentioned errata to them to allow them to work on these abilities.

There is no need for an errata. Play 5e in the spirit in which it was written, and you don't need an errata. And if your DM does his stuff as advised by the rules, your character would probably never noticed what happened. Or if he really thinks it's unfair, then he just has to label them "spells" in your game and it's done. Now, please, again, how is this anything else than extremely minor ?

 

[Mort]

MANY class abilities ? Really ? How many ? How many characters are actually affected, in which percentage of the fights ? It's extremely minor at best. Moreover, get your facts straight, and read, it's not combat spells. Checked it ? Found out that it's only damaging spells ? Are these the only combat spells ? No. Now can you please be a bit more moderate in your comments ?

Right now it's just 1 adventure that has instituted the change - so difficult to tell.

We'll see going forward how major or minor it is. Key will be Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse (coming in January) which will be using this format for monsters - and it reprints existing monsters with this new format.

Examples are coming out from this book already.

Judging by the Bard example - what's been discussed will be the norm:

The Bard's casting of shatter is replaced with an ability called cacophony (recharge on 5-6) which mimics shatter but is expressly not listed as a spell.

Warlock looks to get the same treatment.

If it's the norm, the impact should be addressed. It's not like it's that difficult:

"Special abilities that mimic spells are considered spells..." OR "Special abilities are not considered spells unless expressly stated otherwise..."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah. In the video I posted a few pages ago, he does Sage Advice for Invisibility vs. See Invisibility. He uses the same excuse above for his ruling, "The published text is the only thing that matters when Crawford answers questions about the game rules."

The question was, "Does an invisible person gain advantage on attacks against someone that has cast See Invisibility. He says that unlike Faerie Fire, See Invisibility does not say that it removes advantage, so despite saying you can see the invisible person as if he were visible, it does not remove the advantage. If it was supposed to remove it, it would say so. Then came his justification for both being able to see the invisible creature as if it were visible, yet still allowing it to have advantage. It must be like the Predator! You can see it, but it's this almost invisible, but still visible outline. Which of course complete ignores the "as if they were visible" portion of the See Invisibility spell. Hell, the See Invisibility spell says that ethereal creatures appear ghostly and translucent, which is more like the Predator. No such language appears for invisible creatures.

Hearing his logic for how he comes up with his rulings explained to me very clearly why so many of his rulings are so stupid.

You misunderstood what he was saying rather badly. He wasn’t saying that the predator thing was why the two effects interact that way. He was giving DMs a way to understand the RAW interaction within the fiction.

As for his rulings being “stupid”, feel free to compile all your design work and post it with an invitation to review it as harshly as we feel like.

 

[Maxperson]

No. Your combats must be something I don't want to participate in, if the only spell that you want stop are the damaging spells. As for me, with my halfling sorceress, my best memories of counterspelling were actually to prevent our nemesis from fleeing once more. So no, you are clearly, 100% wrong here.

Yeeaaaahhh, no. You don't get to declare your way the 100% correct way, which is the only way I could possibly be 100% wrong. I reject your one true way.

Oh, and it's not just the damaging spells. He said the most powerful ones. You should listen to what Crawford is saying.

You position relies clearly on very specific games and way of playing, as demonstrated on this thread since yesterday. If you take it in a less biased way, how many monsters have actual spellcasting in the books ? 5% ? 10% ? How many of these spells are converted ? Maybe 1-2 per monster (that's what we see in TWBtWL). And out of the fights were these monsters are present, in how many cases will the characters have abilities that matter, be ready and be willing to use them ? You're looking at 1% of the cases there, at most. In a full campaign level 1-10 with my sorceress (we are making a pause here before the second part), I probably used Counterspell 4-5 times at most. And again, I can't remember an instance in which I used it on a damaging spell, whereas I remember well the two times where I prevented Amelia from fleeing, once in the inn and once in her lair in the streets of Eberron.

Riiiiiiight, spellcasters are rarely encountered. Got it.

Again, HOW MANY ? How many characters are affected ?

Given your history with me, I'm not going to slog through the books to find an answer that you are just going to poo poo on anyway. Even a single character negatively impacted by a major change like this is too many.

 

[Maxperson]

He was giving DMs a way to understand the RAW interaction within the fiction.

That's what I said. It was a justification.

Except the Predator thing doesn't allow us to see the creature as if it were visible. It allows us to see the creature as if it were a nearly invisible blob, which is different. Rather than just coming up with an appropriate ruling, he gave us a half-assed excuse that doesn't fit with what the spells say.

 

[Lyxen]

Yeeaaaahhh, no. You don't get to declare your way the 100% correct way, which is the only way I could possibly be 100% wrong. I reject your one true way.

You mistake me, I"m not claiming that my way is 10)% correct, what I'm saying is that YOUR way is 100% incorrect if you assume that counterspelling is only useful and/or usable on damaging spell. I've even given you actual examples of play.

Oh, and it's not just the damaging spells. He said the most powerful ones. You should listen to what Crawford is saying.

And people have pointed out that you have misunderstood him.

Riiiiiiight, spellcasters are rarely encountered. Got it.

Take any published adventure and let me know how spellcasters encounters are in the book, in percentage. That should give you a benchmark.

Given your history with me, I'm not going to slog through the books to find an answer that you are just going to poo poo on anyway. Even a single character negatively impacted by a major change like this is too many.

RIght, as usual, your position is totally unsupported by actual facts, since, you use "many" for.... "one", being counterspell. I'll be generous and add Mage Slayer so that you reach a grand total of 2... For me, that's far from "many".