D&D 5E A tweak for Counterspell

[DND_Reborn]

@dnd4vr, my wife ran a campaign where we had 3 people (half the party) that could counterspell. We had counterspell conga lines where all the PCs counterspell either the original spell or a counterspell of the counterspell of the counterspell of the ... wait I lost count.

But you get the idea. Unless the number of enemy spellcasters outnumbered the PC spellcasters, the NPC spellcasters never got a spell off. Part of this was because she was purposely running a high-powered gonzo campaign where we went nova all the time, but after a while it just became perfunctory. She could always throw multiple spellcasters, but that made balancing encounters difficult. If the encounter happened to fall after a lot of people were drained, it became a super tough fight. PCs have spell slots? It's a cake walk.

Maybe you've been lucky enough to never see this.

Thanks for the insight. We have four spellcasters currently in a party of seven, 3 of whom can counterspell or dispel or both. At our current level (mostly 9th) we can't use too many of our spell slots to combat the enemy casters because it burns through our spell slots too quickly. Also, the range and no knowing what spell we are countering makes it a gamble at best, and for a 3rd or higher level slot. So, the only time we see counterspells is when we become desperate--the fight is on the line and if that enemy caster's spell goes off, it could be devasting to the party.

We also don't get a lot of chances for long rests during adventures, so regain spell slots is not easy. I guess most of us understand how much of an issue it is really is simply due to the game-style/table. For your example, it was an issue, for us, not so much.

Thanks again for your input.

 

[Oofta]

Thanks for the insight. We have four spellcasters currently in a party of seven, 3 of whom can counterspell or dispel or both. At our current level (mostly 9th) we can't use too many of our spell slots to combat the enemy casters because it burns through our spell slots too quickly. Also, the range and no knowing what spell we are countering makes it a gamble at best, and for a 3rd or higher level slot. So, the only time we see counterspells is when we become desperate--the fight is on the line and if that enemy caster's spell goes off, it could be devasting to the party.

We also don't get a lot of chances for long rests during adventures, so regain spell slots is not easy. I guess most of us understand how much of an issue it is really is simply due to the game-style/table. For your example, it was an issue, for us, not so much.

Thanks again for your input.

It's going to vary a lot by campaign, party makeup and people playing. We also weren't using the alternate rule that required a reaction to identify a spell. It didn't help that it was a heavy RP game (great in and of itself) that ended up meaning that we didn't have that many encounters between long rests.

Fundamentally I kind of like the idea of a spell battle. Two casters going mano-e-mano, that's not overly complicated because it's not a major focus of the game. But what we have now doesn't really evoke that kind of feeling. It seems like it should also be caster-vs-caster, not caster-vs-caster-vs-caster-vs-caster.

So that's why I proposed that you could spend spell slots to up the power of the spell you're casting and having a skill check. I'd probably have to play with it a bit to see if I really liked it as a house rule or not.

I'm trying to get to a point where there's something tactically more interesting than "the npc casts" followed by "no he doesn't".

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's going to vary a lot by campaign, party makeup and people playing. We also weren't using the alternate rule that required a reaction to identify a spell. It didn't help that it was a heavy RP game (great in and of itself) that ended up meaning that we didn't have that many encounters between long rests.

Fundamentally I kind of like the idea of a spell battle. Two casters going mano-e-mano, that's not overly complicated because it's not a major focus of the game. But what we have now doesn't really evoke that kind of feeling. It seems like it should also be caster-vs-caster, not caster-vs-caster-vs-caster-vs-caster.

So that's why I proposed that you could spend spell slots to up the power of the spell you're casting and having a skill check. I'd probably have to play with it a bit to see if I really liked it as a house rule or not.

I'm trying to get to a point where there's something tactically more interesting than "the npc casts" followed by "no he doesn't".

Yeah, it would be nice to see something more robust, but that brings in complexity which 5E tries to reduce. I think something more along the lines of blocking or deflecting a spell would be more in the flavor than simply cancelling it.

 

[Nutation]

You can normally use a reaction on your turn, but I don't like the OP's option for a simple reason. In games I've seen, there would be no possibility of an enemy spellcaster getting off a spell if they are seen/in range. Ever.

That will vary based on party and campaign of course, I can only relate what I've experienced.

This is a constant problem in Adventurer's League (which is admittedly its own unique thing). PC arcane casters are common, and they will always counter. NPC casters rarely appear more than 1 at a time.

 

[FrogReaver]

In 5e you can counter-counterspell a spell you are casting. What if that were not possible?

I.e. You cannot Counterspell the Counterspell that targets you or a spell that you are casting. You may still Counterspell a Counterspell targetted at another spellcaster or their spell.

Or, more generally, you cannot take a Reaction while you are executing an Action or Bonus Action when said Action is casting a spell.

To theory-justify this, it would be because you are currently casting the original spell and cannot be casting two spells at the same time.

What problem does this solve? It reduces complexity by limiting competing Counterspells.

It seems to me that spells require components like somatic or verbal. If you are using your math or free hand to cast a different spell then it seems reasonable to rule you can’t use that same mouth or free hand to cast counterspell.

So IMO no house rule is needed. Just an abdjuction of the rules.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Thanks for the insight. We have four spellcasters currently in a party of seven, 3 of whom can counterspell or dispel or both. At our current level (mostly 9th) we can't use too many of our spell slots to combat the enemy casters because it burns through our spell slots too quickly. Also, the range and no knowing what spell we are countering makes it a gamble at best, and for a 3rd or higher level slot.

Part of the problem comes from the old attrition model, and how it only applies to PCs. Even if the party wants to be extremely conservative with their spell slots, enemy spellcasters have very little reason to do the same.

It's not like the lich is going to fight any other groups of adventurers today. It has all of these extra spell slots that would otherwise go to waste, so it has no reason to not counter something every round. And if the lich is countering your stuff, but you aren't countering its stuff, then it's not going to go well for you.

 

[TallIan]

snip...

Now, I'd like to see the table who actually plays this way. I have yet to see anyone not announce the spell they are casting (or at least don't ever remember seeing anyone) in 5 years of DMing and playing 5e over many campaigns. It's pretty much been Will Byers style: "I cast Fireball!" As DM, I would say I've announced the spell 98% of the time, too. Of course, I've only had one Counterspell "duel" during that time. Methinks I will be changing this starting with my next session tonight after noodling about this thread. The players can do what they want but it would behoove them to indicate they are casting a spell rather than telling me the spell when faced with a 5th level+ enemy caster...

This is how I run my tables (IRL at least) and how my current DM started running his after some input from me playing the party wizard (I have considerably more DMing experience than he does).

I’ll identify a rough level of spell: low for levels 1 to 2; mid for levels 4 to 5 and high for level 6+, I rarely play high enough level to require more definition for higher level spell. Cantrips I usually just announce and roll for without a chance to counter, I feel that Counterspelling a cantrips blind is somewhat unfair and I don’t think anyone has ever counterapelled one in my games.

I equate this to hearing gunfire. I’m no gun nerd but I can usually tell the difference between pistol, rifle and machine gun fire so I can ignore it, counter it or run away from it.