D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Digdude]

Im really surprised counterspell didnt come up, but shield did..How do you narrate the counterspelling of a counterspell? Isnt that all retcon too?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Im really surprised counterspell didnt come up, but shield did..How do you narrate the counterspelling of a counterspell? Isnt that all retcon too?

Sure, but I hate counterspell.

 

[tetrasodium]

Interesting that you argue the intended play loop causes a lack of attention.

these spells & abilities violate the basic playloop.

I've noticed it ensures players are following closely - as a failure to follow closely means a missed opportunity to use the reaction.

The playloop is detailed on page 6 &181 of the PHB:

• Step 1. The DM describes the environment. (the chest is "sufficiently telegraphed") (the orc is going to attack you three times)
• Step 2. The players describe what they want to do.(Player wants to touch the chest) ("I want to cast shield/parry that belongs here but would be weaker if triggered early")
• Step 3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions(Step2 has passed & it is time for the GM starts rolling dice.) (the retcon abilities as written encourage the player to wait for this to complete in order to ensure shield/parry will block the attack & that uncanny dodge won't halve a piddly low damage hit from a subpar roll)

The scenario in the OP attempts to insert step2 in the middle of step2 because as you say it earlier Apparently, the PC missed the "sufficient telegraphing," . It doesn't matter why they "missed" the sufficient telegraphing, just that they didn't do step2 during step2 by putting on/adjusting their gloves before touching the chest or whatever and want to do it now during step3.

The scenario with spells like shield & abilities like parry/uncanny dodge that allow a retcon reaction that inserts step2 in the middle of step3 in a way that encourages the player to tune out the pointless GM talkytalky of step 1 & meaningless noise mentioned to them during step2 because step3 is subject to retcon if they feel like it. Worse with 5e the extreme lack of lethality & risk insulation present creates a situation where there is no downside for not paying attention.

Im really surprised counterspell didnt come up, but shield did..How do you narrate the counterspelling of a counterspell? Isnt that all retcon too?

The 5e counterspell is very not good since it does not involve any skill checks or readied actions. In 3.5 it was not even a spell though & the difference kept it from being a retcon.

Spoiler: 3.x counterspells*

COUNTERSPELLS
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are
using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by
another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine
and the other arcane.
How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must
select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by
choosing the ready action (page 160). In doing so, you elect to wait
to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell.
(You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.)
If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a
Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free
action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s
spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do
either of these things.
To complete the action, you must then cast the correct spell. As a
general rule, a spell can only counter itself. For example, a fireball
spell is effective as a counter to another fireball spell, but not to any
other spell, no matter how similar. Fireball cannot counter delayed
blast fireball or vice versa. If you are able to cast the same spell and
you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it
slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range,
both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Metamagic feats are not
taken into account when determining whether a spell can be
countered. For example, a normal fireball can counter a maximized


fireball (that is, a fireball that has been enhanced by the metamagic
feat Maximize Spell) and vice versa.
Specific Exceptions: Some spells specifically counter each
other, especially when they have diametrically opposed effects. For
example, you can counter a haste spell with a slow spell as well as
with another haste spell, or you can counter reduce person with enlarge
person.
Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can use dispel magic to
counterspell another spellcaster, and you don’t need to identify the
spell he or she is casting. However, dispel magic doesn’t always work
as a counterspell (see the spell description, page 223).

*phb170

 

[Lanefan]

Im really surprised counterspell didnt come up, but shield did..How do you narrate the counterspelling of a counterspell? Isnt that all retcon too?

I'd just never allow a counterspell to be countered. That was one of the worst rulings ever from any design team.

 

[Clint_L]

I'd just never allow a counterspell to be countered. That was one of the worst rulings ever from any design team.

I'm curious - why not? Being able to counter a counter seems logical to me, but maybe it's because I've been playing a lot of Exploding Kittens with my kid and using a "Nope" on someone else's "Nope" is hella fun.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm curious - why not? Being able to counter a counter seems logical to me, but maybe it's because I've been playing a lot of Exploding Kittens with my kid and using a "Nope" on someone else's "Nope" is hella fun.

In a game-only sense, sure. Magic made a lot of hay with this.

But in an RPG that's trying to maintain some semblance of consistent passage of time in the setting, it doesn't make sense.

No matter how much in-game time it takes to cast a counterspell, that amount of time has to be a positive number greater than zero. If you cast one in response to my casting one, by the time yours resolves mine must have also resolved - we're casting the same spell and you in theory can't cast yours any faster than I can cast mine. (if you can, we have a much bigger problem)

And before you say you start casting yours before I start mine because you see me loading up to cast one, that doesn't work either because I could then choose to bail on casting mine, which means you almost certainly wouldn't start yours until I'd already committed to mine by beginning to cast it, in turn meaning mine has to finish before yours because it started before yours.

Sorry, but Crawford's ruling on this is utter garbage.

 

[Clint_L]

In a game-only sense, sure. Magic made a lot of hay with this.

But in an RPG that's trying to maintain some semblance of consistent passage of time in the setting, it doesn't make sense.

No matter how much in-game time it takes to cast a counterspell, that amount of time has to be a positive number greater than zero. If you cast one in response to my casting one, by the time yours resolves mine must have also resolved - we're casting the same spell and you in theory can't cast yours any faster than I can cast mine. (if you can, we have a much bigger problem)

And before you say you start casting yours before I start mine because you see me loading up to cast one, that doesn't work either because I could then choose to bail on casting mine, which means you almost certainly wouldn't start yours until I'd already committed to mine by beginning to cast it, in turn meaning mine has to finish before yours because it started before yours.

Sorry, but Crawford's ruling on this is utter garbage.

My first response would be that it's a game and the ruling makes the game more fun. But it also doesn't affect the realism (so much as magic can be said to have realism at all) for me, because the DM narrates the passage of time and can simply tell the story so that it makes sense:

Gameplay: Player 1 casts spell, NPC casts counterspell, Player 2 counterspells the counterspell.

Narration: As you raise your hands and the small bead of elemental energy prepares to launch from your fingers, you see Kagarr the Dark begin to raise his own hand, preparing to drain the arcane energy from your fireball. Yet before he can finish, you see a confused look come over his face; he whirls around to see Kate the Bard, winking, penny whistle at her lips as she blocks Kagarr's counterspell.

If someone objected that Kate's counterspell shouldn't have been faster than Kagarr's I would simply answer that it obviously was, because that's what happened, and there is no particular reason that two spells have to take the exact same time to cast in my story, any more than two gunslingers would have to draw at the exact same speed. But I've never had anyone object to a counterspell being counterspelled so it's never come up.

Edit: your argument seems to rely on the notion that the same spell takes the exact same amount of time to cast for everyone. But that notion is itself totally unrealistic. No two people in the real universe do the same thing at the exact same speed. That's why showdowns in Westerns are exciting.

 

[Mort]

The 5e counterspell is very not good since it does not involve any skill checks or readied actions. In 3.5 it was not even a spell though & the difference kept it from being a retcon.

Spoiler: 3.x counterspells*

COUNTERSPELLS
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are
using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by
another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine
and the other arcane.
How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must
select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by
choosing the ready action (page 160). In doing so, you elect to wait
to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell.
(You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.)
If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a
Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free
action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s
spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do
either of these things.
To complete the action, you must then cast the correct spell. As a
general rule, a spell can only counter itself. For example, a fireball
spell is effective as a counter to another fireball spell, but not to any
other spell, no matter how similar. Fireball cannot counter delayed
blast fireball or vice versa. If you are able to cast the same spell and
you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it
slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range,
both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Metamagic feats are not
taken into account when determining whether a spell can be
countered. For example, a normal fireball can counter a maximized


fireball (that is, a fireball that has been enhanced by the metamagic
feat Maximize Spell) and vice versa.
Specific Exceptions: Some spells specifically counter each
other, especially when they have diametrically opposed effects. For
example, you can counter a haste spell with a slow spell as well as
with another haste spell, or you can counter reduce person with enlarge
person.
Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can use dispel magic to
counterspell another spellcaster, and you don’t need to identify the
spell he or she is casting. However, dispel magic doesn’t always work
as a counterspell (see the spell description, page 223).

5e counterspell DOES involve a check, unless cast at an equal or higher level to the spell countered.

3e/3.5e counterspelling was a clunky mess that was near impossible to set up and generally not worth doing so. I don't recall a player using it in my entire time running or playing 3e/3.5e.

As annoying as 5e counterspell is, I consider it a vast improvement over 3e.

*phb170

 

[tetrasodium]

5e counterspell DOES involve a check, unless cast at an equal or higher level to the spell countered.

check is defined...

Spoiler: in 3.x

SKILL CHECKS
A skill check takes into account a character’s training (skill rank),
natural talent (ability modifier), and luck (the die roll). It may also
take into account his or her race’s knack for doing certain things
(racial bonus) or what armor he or she is wearing (armor check
penalty), or a certain feat the character possesses, among other
things. For instance, a character who has the Skill Focus feat (page
100) related to a certain skill gets a +3 bonus on all checks involving
that skill.
To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill
modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s
ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability,
plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including
racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the
better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of
20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is
not an automatic failure.

---

Spoiler: in 5e

ABILITY CHECK
The Ability Check is one of three types of d20
Tests. The rules often call for an Ability Check,
and the DM can also call for an Ability Check,
determining which ability to use when a creature
attempts something (other than an Attack Roll or
a Saving Throw) that has a chance of meaningful
failure. When the outcome is uncertain and
narratively interesting, the dice determine the
results.
The Ability Check has the following special
rules.
SKILLS
When you make an Ability Check, the rules or the
DM determines whether a Skill Proficiency is
relevant to the check. If you have a relevant Skill
Proficiency, you can add your Proficiency Bonus
to the roll. For example, if a rule refers to a
Strength Check (Acrobatics or Athletics), you can
add your Proficiency Bonus to the check if you
have Acrobatics or Athletics Proficiency.
ACTION REQUIRED
Making an Ability Check requires you to take an
Action unless a rule says otherwise. Several of
the named Actions—such as Hide and
Influence—include Ability Checks.
The DM may override this requirement and
allow a particular Ability Check to be made as
part of a Bonus Action or as no Action at all.
DIFFICULTY CLASS
The DM determines the Difficulty Class of an
Ability Check and can override a DC specified in
the rules. The Typical Difficulty Class table
shows the most common DCs.
The default DC for a check is 15, and it is rarely
worth calling for an Ability Check if the DC is as
low as 5, unless the potential failure is
narratively interesting.
TYPICAL DIFFICULTY CLASS
Task Difficulty DC
Very Easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30

---

Spoiler: in 6e

---

ABILITY CHECK
The Ability Check is one of three types of d20
Tests. The rules often call for an Ability Check,
and the DM can also call for an Ability Check,
determining which ability to use when a creature
attempts something (other than an Attack Roll or
a Saving Throw) that has a chance of meaningful
failure. When the outcome is uncertain and
narratively interesting, the dice determine the
results.
The Ability Check has the following special
rules.
SKILLS
When you make an Ability Check, the rules or the
DM determines whether a Skill Proficiency is
relevant to the check. If you have a relevant Skill
Proficiency, you can add your Proficiency Bonus
to the roll. For example, if a rule refers to a
Strength Check (Acrobatics or Athletics), you can
add your Proficiency Bonus to the check if you
have Acrobatics or Athletics Proficiency.
ACTION REQUIRED
Making an Ability Check requires you to take an
Action unless a rule says otherwise. Several of
the named Actions—such as Hide and
Influence—include Ability Checks.
The DM may override this requirement and
allow a particular Ability Check to be made as
part of a Bonus Action or as no Action at all.
DIFFICULTY CLASS
The DM determines the Difficulty Class of an
Ability Check and can override a DC specified in
the rules. The Typical Difficulty Class table
shows the most common DCs.
The default DC for a check is 15, and it is rarely
worth calling for an Ability Check if the DC is as
low as 5, unless the potential failure is
narratively interesting.
TYPICAL DIFFICULTY CLASS
Task Difficulty DC
Very Easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30

---

and your attempt to redefine it as a mere requirement of slot level is entirely unreasonable.

3e/3.5e counterspelling was a clunky mess that was near impossible to set up and generally not worth doing so. I don't recall a player using it in my entire time running or playing 3e/3.5e.

As annoying as 5e counterspell is, I consider it a vast improvement over 3e.

This is either flat wrong or a stellar example of the painful splitting of hairs caused by "natural language" frequently robs GMs of the ability to convey clear & concise meaning with clear & concise wording. Checks are a term that is fairly well accepted as a specific thing throughout the ttrpg community and nearly every editionof d&d other than 5e. Thanks to natural language and a lack of well defined terms we need to hash out if some form of check like a skill check with a d20 roll is meaningfully different from a logic flow gating where counters Pell needs to be cast at the same slot level or higher. Luckily 6e is already improving this gm kneecap ping self inflicted wound with "d20 checks" as a specifically defined subset of "d20 tests.

With that basic terminology settled we can avoid a long winding discussion over If the meaning of defined terms is a subjective matter of personal opinion or not and just move on to why you rarely saw players counterspell in 3.x but see it regularly in 5e. On the topic of how often conterspell is used now vrs then, it shouldn't be ignored that counterspell in 5e went from a specific readied action to a playloop violating retcon reaction that does not even cost an action† to nullify an opponent's action. Of course removing questions like "do I think they will cast a spell?" and "do I think that the spell they are going to cast is worth burning my action to maybe counter?" is going to dramatically lower the bar for counterspell to be cast regularly.

This thread has been filled with statements about how the gm should telegraph things more to support the desires of a player who didn't notice "sufficient telegraphing" prior to step2 in the playloop to avoid locking in fiction resolved by completed rolls that have already been made & tallied during step3 of the play loop in case a player uses a reaction ability to retcon them outside of their turn in step3... Perhaps your observation of counterspell nonuse is on you simply failing to "sufficiently telegraph" thingds like dangerous casters during steps 1 & 3 the GM is responsible for? Many experienced GMs do that by sprinkling in phrases like "lord bbeg is a skilled and dangerous wizard/sorcerer, be on your guard for his signature $spell" and in combat actions with phrases like " the lich looks like it's gearing up to cast another spell after laying down that wall/web/etc spell it just dropped" where & when appropriate. Alternately, perhaps you did that kind of thing & your players simply did not often feel that counterspelling a spellcaster as a matter of reflex to be worth the opportunity cost of a readied action as often as it is in 5e given how far the bar has been lowered. I thought that quoting the whole entry in a for the old counterspell would make the rule "sufficiently telegraphed" rand avoid drawing exclusively on everyone's memories. spoiler (which you also quoted) so "You do this by choosing the ready action (page 160). In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell." is already established as a "sufficiently telegraphed" thing rather than a thing we need to make an effort to recall. 5e's counterspell has no such check or readied action requirement


* Before anyone asks why I left out counterspell in 2e. It may have been in a splatbook/supplement of some form but my memory along with the phb & dmg don't appear to have any counterspelling other than some specific spells saying they counter each other,
†"reaction" may be a type of action but it is not an "action", natural language strikes again

 

[Clint_L]

I think what all this comes down to is how you tell the story. As DM, I don't usually add my 2 bits until all the rolls are resolved, and then I put it together in the way that makes most sense to me and makes for a fun story. So if a fireball explodes, I don't talk about the consequences until the damage is rolled, saving throws happen, evasion is accounted for, resistances, and anything else. Same with counterspell or anything else where there are multiple effects to track.

For me, the mechanics of the game are there to keep it functioning at a tabletop level, but don't perfectly reflect what is happening in the "real world" of the story. So a round of combat is everyone trying to do a bunch of stuff at basically the same time, not an orderly progression of people taking turns. Initiative just reflects that you were a split second faster than the next person. My narrative reality is fairly chaotic.