D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Micah Sweet]

No. Real world examples constantly refute this.

So whoever happened to cast the last counterspell retroactively becomes capable of faster casting?

 

[FrogReaver]

So whoever happened to cast the last counterspell retroactively becomes capable of faster casting?

Maybe elaborate because I'm confounded at why you would think I would answer this with anything but a 'you're crazy, i never said anything even remotely implying that'.

 

[Maxperson]

Can’t there be more than one version? Or can’t one person do it more quickly than another? Who says your idea of timing is what matters when magic’s involved? Magic breaks the rules… that’s what it does.

We already know that neither one is quicker than the other. How? Because if the following round the counterspelling were reversed with the NPC countering the PC's counter, the "slower" person would be "faster" now.

I find it best not to look too closely at counterspell and will just ban it in my next campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe elaborate because I'm confounded at why you would think I would answer this with anything but a 'you're crazy, i never said anything even remotely implying that'.

You said that real life examples refute the idea that faster methods of spellcasting with disseminate over time. Since as it stands whoever actually casts the last counterspell is the one that works, it is the fastest. Does that mean that the fastest method of counterspelling retroactively is the one performed by whoever happened to cast the last one?

 

[FrogReaver]

You said that real life examples refute the idea that faster methods of spellcasting with disseminate over time. Since as it stands whoever actually casts the last counterspell is the one that works, it is the fastest. Does that mean that the fastest method of counterspelling retroactively is the one performed by whoever happened to cast the last one?

I said real life examples refute the general idea that more efficient methods are necessarily disseminated and adopted over time.

I have no idea what any of the rest has to do with that proposition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If one person finds a way to do it quicker than another, isn't it simply inevitable that everyone will eventually learn that quicker way and that'll become the version in universal use henceforth? (and, unless the spell is quite new to the setting, that process will long since have been done, to the point where each spell is already running on its "best" version)

I suppose that would explain why everything in the real world is done in only one way.

Magic breaks the rules...and magic also runs by extremely strict rules. That's what spellbooks are for - they detail the precise instructions that tell a caster to do exact motions A and B while saying exact words X, Y, and Z if you want to get the expected result.

The rules that govern how magic works are fictional. We can choose to craft a fiction that allows for the game to work the way it does, or we can choose to craft a fiction that conflicts with how the game works.

It’s entirely up to the group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suppose that would explain why everything in the real world is done in only one way.





The rules that govern how magic works are fictional. We can choose to craft a fiction that allows for the game to work the way it does, or we can choose to craft a fiction that conflicts with how the game works.

It’s entirely up to the group.

If the rules don't make sense to you, the best option is IMO not to just accept it, but to change it.

 

[Voadam]

Making some conceptual narrative sense of various D&D rules is something I have done for many editions across many years.

D&D provides many opportunities for creatively coming up with such narrations to have the rules make sense.

5e Counterspell being quick to cast but not effectuating until right before the target spell effectuates makes narrative sense of the sequential casting of serial reaction castings and the interrupt resolution mechanic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Making some conceptual narrative sense of various D&D rules is something I have done for many editions across many years.

D&D provides many opportunities for creatively coming up with such narrations to have the rules make sense.

5e Counterspell being quick to cast but not effectuating until right before the target spell effectuates makes narrative sense of the sequential casting of serial reaction castings and the interrupt resolution mechanic.

A matter of opinion. IMO, it makes mechanical sense but, as written, it does not make narrative sense. Deciding that the rules take precedence over the narrative and the setting is a choice, not a requirement.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

A matter of opinion. IMO, it makes mechanical sense but, as written, it does not make narrative sense. Deciding that the rules take precedence over the narrative and the setting is a choice, not a requirement.

But do not rules define a game?
And how is it that many are able to have enjoyable fantasy narratives within the context of the 5e rules?

In any case, it is nice to know that you have found that you are able to achieve the goals of play through A5e (I do have that right, yes?)