D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[tetrasodium]

This debate happens all the time. Not specifically about counterspelling counterspells, but where some aspect of the game (really any RPG) just feels wrong to somebody, but instead of just saying, "I don't like that part of the game" the person feels a need to rationalize it as objectively wrong.

I actually kind of also dislike counterspelling counterspells, aesthetically. I don't need to insist that it breaks the fiction to be comfortable with disliking it. I don't (currently) ban it with a houserule, but if WotC changed the official rules to do so I would approve.

...and I can easily imagine a scene where one character tries to cast fireball, a second character counterspells it, and a third character (or even the first character?) counterspells the second character. No problem. As @hawkeyefan says, the fiction isn't bound by the game structure.

To be fair, people are talking about abilities that function in violation of the play loop defined by the rules themselves.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To be fair, people are talking about abilities that function in violation of the play loop defined by the rules themselves.

And I don't understand why that bothers them, since the play loop is for the players, not the characters.

Even though each character's movement happens on their own turn (play loop), I don't imagine it happening that way in the fiction.

I suppose if I did imagine movement happening sequentially then the reaction rules would really bother me. But I don't, and they don't.

 

[Lanefan]

But are these imaginary blocking exemplars wearing gloves???

Asking for a friend.

Yes; boxing gloves, in some of the examples we've been given.

 

[Lanefan]

Neat - thank you for explaining how it works at your table. I'm glad it works for your non-5e game (and I could see someone else adopting it for a 5e game - they'd need to revamp the spellcasting times, but it could work).

A little too much fiddly math for my tastes for running a quick 5e combat, though. And seems to really nerf casters.

Well, that's intentional. I subscribe to the Gygax theory in the DMG that says casting is a meticulous operation that needs complete concentration and can never be done while in melee. That said, the spells are generally more useful and-or long-lasting than the nerfed 5e versions if-when they do get cast.

Further, being a fan of the PCs, I honestly don't care if the bad guy can get off their final attack on a tied initiative - it's a real corner case where that would even matter.

It comes up at least once per combat on average. And if I'm a fan of the PCs that means I'm not neutral, and thus violating my role as neutral arbiter/referee.

I get it now. It's the 0-segmenting a 0-segment that you oppose. Fair enough given your preferred resolution style.

It's relevant given that 5e seems to only have three speeds a spell can be cast at: ritual speed, action speed, and reaction speed. Sacrifices too much design space on the altar of simplification IMO, but there it is.

 

[Lanefan]

...and I can easily imagine a scene where one character tries to cast fireball, a second character counterspells it, and a third character (or even the first character?) counterspells the second character. No problem.

That brings up an even more egregious eample of nonsensical rulings: that a caster in the middle of casting one spell can self-interrupt and stop, cast a second different spell, then resume casting the first one to its completion.

This flies in the face of the concept that an interrupted spell is lost e.g. if the caster gets hit in the face during casting and fails to maintain the casting process (which failure IMO should be automatic, but that's another issue). Here the caster is not just interrupting himself but is doing so in order to cast another spell, so how on earth can the process of casting the first one be maintained?

 

[Lanefan]

I suppose if I did imagine movement happening sequentially then the reaction rules would really bother me. But I don't, and they don't.

I try to imagine everything in the fiction happening in a manner such that time only flows one way, because if time can be reversed the whole thing falls apart.

 

[pemerton]

This flies in the face of the concept that an interrupted spell is lost e.g. if the caster gets hit in the face during casting and fails to maintain the casting process (which failure IMO should be automatic, but that's another issue). Here the caster is not just interrupting himself but is doing so in order to cast another spell, so how on earth can the process of casting the first one be maintained?

It must follow, then, that AD&D-style spell interruption is not a part of 5e D&D. Which it's not. QED.

 

[pemerton]

I try to imagine everything in the fiction happening in a manner such that time only flows one way

So does @Bill Zebub, I think. Hence the suggestion that movement is not envisaged as occurring sequentially in the fiction as it does in the resolution process.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I try to imagine everything in the fiction happening in a manner such that time only flows one way, because if time can be reversed the whole thing falls apart.

I have no idea how this relates to what I wrote that you are responding to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This debate happens all the time. Not specifically about counterspelling counterspells, but where some aspect of the game (really any RPG) just feels wrong to somebody, but instead of just saying, "I don't like that part of the game" the person feels a need to rationalize it as objectively wrong.

I actually kind of also dislike counterspelling counterspells, aesthetically. I don't need to insist that it breaks the fiction to be comfortable with disliking it. I don't (currently) ban it with a houserule, but if WotC changed the official rules to do so I would approve.

...and I can easily imagine a scene where one character tries to cast fireball, a second character counterspells it, and a third character (or even the first character?) counterspells the second character. No problem. As @hawkeyefan says, the fiction isn't bound by the game structure.

See, I feel that if the game structure is standing in the way of the fiction, its the game structure that needs to change.