D&D (2024) Two Spells, One Turn Confusion Never Dies

[Oofta]

Considering I never had players actually counterspell (let along counterspelling a counterspell), it's still nothing I'm going to worry about.

And honestly... I'm just going to treat Reactions as I always have, which is not a part of a PC's "turn" but a separate window-- thereby not falling within the "two big spells a round" thing. Again... to me the whole point of the rules was merely just to stop power-gamer players from using their turns in the initiative order to spam massive attack spells to nova the enemy and thus making the non-caster characters superfluous. So me getting nitpicky about counterspells or other non-attack effects due to "the rules" is not worth my time worrying about.

You're lucky. We had groups where PC 1 would cast a spell, BG 1 would counterspell PC 1's spell, PC 1 would counterspell BG 1's counterspell, BG 2 would counterspell PC 1's counterspell, PC 2 would counterspell BG 2's counterspell. I wish I was exaggerating, we had 3 PCs that could counterspell and counterspell wars were common.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You're lucky. We had groups where PC 1 would cast a spell, BG 1 would counterspell PC 1's spell, PC 1 would counterspell BG 1's counterspell, BG 2 would counterspell PC 1's counterspell, PC 2 would counterspell BG 2's counterspell. I wish I was exaggerating, we had 3 PCs that could counterspell and counterspell wars were common.

This is why I find players who care about narrative and story much more than the board game. Spells going off during a fight is a standard operating procedure, so no one would care about them that much to spend all their time and resources bothering with that counterspelling stuff, LOL.

 

[Distracted DM]

This is why I find players who care about narrative and story much more than the board game. Spells going off during a fight is a standard operating procedure, so no one would care about them that much to spend all their time and resources bothering with that counterspelling stuff, LOL.

Is the suggestion here that using counterspell is anti-narrative/story, or that counterspelling a counterspell is anti-narrative/story?

 

[Will Brandiman]

The whole thing is ridiculous IMO. You have an action, bonus action, and reaction (and movement of course). If someone wants to cast a bonus action spell AND an action spell in the same turn--burning through spell slots--let them. Need a reaction on the same turn? Go for it.

This makes things like Misty Step incredibly useful and arguably a must-have. If you ever played BG3 you'll know how amazing it is to be able to BA spell and cast another spell in the same turn.

 

[Oofta]

This is why I find players who care about narrative and story much more than the board game. Spells going off during a fight is a standard operating procedure, so no one would care about them that much to spend all their time and resources bothering with that counterspelling stuff, LOL.

For the most part it was a good group. They cared about narrative and story, they also took advantage of the rules.

 

[TwoSix]

You're lucky. We had groups where PC 1 would cast a spell, BG 1 would counterspell PC 1's spell, PC 1 would counterspell BG 1's counterspell, BG 2 would counterspell PC 1's counterspell, PC 2 would counterspell BG 2's counterspell. I wish I was exaggerating, we had 3 PCs that could counterspell and counterspell wars were common.

In one of my games I had 4 level 12+ PCs all capable of counterspell. The longest counterspell chain I ever saw was 5 casts. It was ridiculous.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Is the suggestion here that using counterspell is anti-narrative/story, or that counterspelling a counterspell is anti-narrative/story?

No to the first... possibly no to the second (since those involve the original two combatants)... but getting a third (and fourth) character involved (whether it's a second player or me as DM using another NPC) is just getting silly in my opinion.

Take the spell attack. It's no big deal. See where the game goes.

 

[TwoSix]

Is the suggestion here that using counterspell is anti-narrative/story, or that counterspelling a counterspell is anti-narrative/story?

Yea, that struck me as a really weird takeaway.

 

[Oofta]

In one of my games I had 4 level 12+ PCs all capable of counterspell. The longest counterspell chain I ever saw was 5 casts. It was ridiculous.

I've considered banning counterspelling counterspell for that very reason. For the most part we've just come to an agreement to not abuse counterspell, I can always have a caster with improved invisibility doing nothing but counterspell on the sidelines after all.

 

[mamba]

A caster can no longer 'Counterspell', with a spell slot, the 'Counterspell' that targets their leveled spell cast with a spell slot, since they would then be using two spell slots per turn.

a plus in my book