D&D 5E Counterspell Idea

[Falling Icicle]

I don't think counterspell should be a spell at all. It should just be a type of action that any spellcaster can take. For example:

Counterspell: As a reaction, you can attempt to counterspell a spell being cast by a creature within 50 feet of you. You engage in a contest with the caster, opposing your magic ability check against the caster's. If you win, the spell has no effect. If you beat the caster's check result by 10 or more, you can reflect the spell back upon him, as if you had cast the spell and the original caster was the primary target. On your next turn, you cannot take an action.

To take this action, you must expend a prepared spell or unused spell slot of equal or higher level of the spell being countered or an equal number of Willpower points (you know how powerful the spell is once you choose to take this action). If you are a warlock, you can expend an unused favor instead, but only if your warlock level is at least twice the level of the spell being countered. If you don't have a powerful enough spell or enough Willpower points, you can't attempt to counter the spell, but you don't lose your next action.

 

[Slander]

The problem w/ easy counter-spells is that it's far easier for a DM to wind up locking down the PC casters than vice-verse. I noticed this problem last campaign I ran (the WotBS w/ cleric Inquisitors who could re-actively expend a Turning attempt to Dispel Magic). Now, the Inquisitors worked given the theme of the campaign and when used sparingly. But I know it would have been frustrating/not-fun for the party caster if he was locked down anytime they ran into any caster.

Prior to my experience w/ easy counter-spelling, I thought like you did and that counter-spelling should be easier. After that, I see some wisdom in making counter-spelling limited, but effective.

 

[slobster]

I hadn't given counterspelling much thought. It never got used much in my games, so it doesn't really ping very strongly when I brainstorm about DDN stuff.

Off the top of my head, the way that DDN handles different casters by giving them fairly different casting mechanics may put an end to the idea of the universal "counterspell". If my warlock gets access to an at-will counterspell, he probably shouldn't be able to spam it against a wizard until she has none of her daily spell slots left.

 

[Lanefan]

I hadn't given counterspelling much thought. It never got used much in my games, so it doesn't really ping very strongly when I brainstorm about DDN stuff.

Off the top of my head, the way that DDN handles different casters by giving them fairly different casting mechanics may put an end to the idea of the universal "counterspell".

Mechanics don't matter if you simply decide that an arcane caster using counterspell can try to counter any other arcane spell regardless of its casting mechanic. That said:

If my warlock gets access to an at-will counterspell, he probably shouldn't be able to spam it against a wizard until she has none of her daily spell slots left.

Counterspell should NEVER be an at-will ability under any circumstances. If a warlock or other at-will caster type gets it there still needs to be a usage limit, and a pretty harsh one. Otherwise any spell battles that ever arise will quickly turn into very boring games of counterspelling. (the simplest answer, of course, is to make sure counterspell is something that is simply never available to at-will caster classes)

Lan-"and if you're foolish enough to allow counterspells to target counterspells you'll get no sympathy from me for the train wreck that follows"-efan

 

[slobster]

Counterspell should NEVER be an at-will ability under any circumstances. If a warlock or other at-will caster type gets it there still needs to be a usage limit, and a pretty harsh one. Otherwise any spell battles that ever arise will quickly turn into very boring games of counterspelling. (the simplest answer, of course, is to make sure counterspell is something that is simply never available to at-will caster classes)

Lan-"and if you're foolish enough to allow counterspells to target counterspells you'll get no sympathy from me for the train wreck that follows"-efan

That was kind of my point, though I don't necessarily agree that at-will counterspelling is impossible to implement. If counterspelling is an at will option, but so is spellcasting, and counterspelling has a chance of failure, then counterspelling becomes a rather poor choice for an action denial ability: you give up your turn for a chance to deny an opponent theirs. It's only useful against opponents who are rather more powerful than you are, or are about to do something particularly nasty.

I'm not advocating that system for DDN, mind you, just pointing out a counterspell system that works (from experience).

But matching up at-will counterspelling with resource-based, exhaustible spells is a problem, because then your action denial is also resource destruction, and all of a sudden the counterspell action is far too powerful.

 

[Ainamacar]

I don't know, I think the main thing is that traditional counterspelling has all the issues that other action-denying abilities have. That is, they can lead to stun-locks on the one-hand or lots of wasted turns on the other. The risk-reward analysis is pretty tricky, especially if there are multiple sources of counterspelling. I mean, if I'm going to spend my action to counterspell I'd want to have a decent chance to actually deny the other caster their turn. But if 3 casters can counterspell, they can almost certainly lock-down a single caster.

Instead, I think it would be better to reorient counterspelling toward "spell dampening." Then it is more likely to do something, much less likely to completely negate a spell, and potentially a lot more scalable when multiple casters are involved. Find an elegant expression for this and we could probably also put spell disruption back into the game using the same principles.

In 3.5 one could almost do this by reducing caster levels by a variable amount, but the importance of caster level was sufficiently inconsistent between spells that it didn't quite work and at low levels it was still pretty binary. I ended up writing an alternate bard with a bardic song that introduced the least frustrating counterspelling I saw in 3.5. The song itself was useful and one could end the song to try to counterspell, so it didn't cost an action in the usual sense but also couldn't be spammed. It came in quite handy for the bard a few times in the campaign.

In 5e I'm not sure how to go about it, but "impede the other guy's spellcasting" is such an obvious (and fictionally iconic) thing to try that I think it might be worth looking at the entire spell system with that in mind. If every spell had a roll to determine it's power (as some magic systems do) that would be straightforward, but it wouldn't be D&D. Given the diversity of systems and effects, maybe the thing to do is make it a la carte: at time of counterspell select one of minimize k dice, give targets a small boost on saves, give caster penalty on related checks, adjust hit point thresholds by kd6, etc. That might also be an ungainly mess if there isn't a very simple way to communicate what happens and move on. Just tossing out ideas.

 

[Warbringer]

Counter spell as suppression?

Reducing damage, or area, or save bonus .... Problem is it uses the action, unless like combat superioty wizards have an action pool where counter spell is sat as reaction by spending for it in the spell somehow ... Maybe, taking a 4 th level spell slot lets the wizard cast the spell as a 3 rd level spell, but also have a reaction to counter spell as a 3 rd level spell as a reaction during the scene ...

Narrative based, the wizard saves some of the power of the spell to disrupt enemy casters....

 

[Ainamacar]

Suppression, yep. We could move away from counterspelling requiring a major action, because that has been part of the problem. We already have abilities in 5e where one can do something special when taking an action, so that could be one promising avenue. A more comprehensive suppression might take an entire action while still avoiding the negation or nothing gamble, and it is just one option in a spectrum. As long as the effects can be applied easily, one can dream up 1000 ways for how they occur. That is a very different from traditional stances, where counterspelling is a procedure first and foremost.

For example, maybe one form of counterspell would be usable every round after casting a spell, giving a moderate reduction in the effective level (or whatever) of a spell of the same school as that just cast. Like a wizard could remove nd6 damage from his fireball, but be able to spend that to suppress other evocation effects. That incentivizes the enemy to avoid evocation effects or softens the impact of an enemy cone-of-cold, but it isn't a hard counter.

Creating interesting trade-offs for oneself and the enemy is what I want from counterspelling. At a basic level I think the art of the mage duel is influencing the enemy to cast the spell he doesn't want to cast, and counterspelling should be an important tool in that toolbox.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some interesting points were made in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...325735-negator-spell-breaker-mage-slayer.html

 

[slobster]

You could also have at-will counterspell options that interface with resource-based spells in the same way that the current playtest deals with any other interrupted spell. You lose the spell, but not the slot that would have been used to cast it.

That way it is action denial, but not the super-effective kind. You give up an action, you deny one of theirs, and that's it. No destruction of their limited resources.

I would also have the counterspell be an unsure thing, that is you have a chance to fail and their spell still gets through.

Makes counterspelling into a soft action denial option that is only really useful against enemy casters who are about to really unleash the hurt. The rest of the time you are probably better off just casting a spell of your own. And I think that's about where I want it to be; playing the dedicated counterspeller sounds about as exciting as playing the healbot, so I don't want to encourage that build.

 

[Lanefan]

playing the dedicated counterspeller sounds about as exciting as playing the healbot, ...

Worse, in fact: at least the healbot always has a purpose (people always need healing) but a counterspeller is useless if there's no casters in the opposition.

That said, an effective counterspell as a spell (i.e. very limited use, and Vancian types need to memorize it ahead of time) is fine. I even took it a step further and invented a spell "Arcane Denial" (yes it's named after the Magic card) where if a target arcane caster fails a save she can't access arcane energy for a while - a round per level of the AD's caster, I think. She can still do everything else - use devices, weapons, move and think as normal, etc. - just not cast arcane spells. If she does save she's immune to that same person's Arcane Denial for the rest of that day; so a caster can't keep trying it till it works.

Lanefan

 

[Li Shenron]

I like the idea of counterspelling, and I think the 3ed rules were more complicated than worth, and usually made counterspelling increadibly hard to pull off. Hence I'd like some brainstorming on how to make it simpler, usable but not overpowered.

My starting point would be: how about just making Dispel Magic allowed to be cast as a reaction, when specifically targetting a spell being cast?

(i.e. not when dispelling an existing ongoing effect, or when targetting an area, or when targetting a creature to try and dispel any magical effects it has active on itself...)

 

[slobo777]

I quite like the idea of "magic battle" that would be something casters on both sides could put actions/resources into, and it might be a way to fend off save-or-die effects on either side.

I do see a problem with that idea though - NPCs are often single power source (all casters, or all non-casters), so allowing magic v magic conflicts to be deciding in addition to regular spell effects would make things very swingy.

Perhaps it could play along with the current spell limitation mechanics, and inspired by Protect:

Suggestion for the effect: A level 1 Counterspell effect interferes with spells cast on you or any of your allies within 20 feet. You may choose one of: +5 to effective max hit points, reduce the damage done by an attack spell by 5, or grant advantage to saves versus level 1 or lower spell effects.
​

. . . just brainstorming - not sure whether this should be a reaction like Protect? The choice of effect is necessary, because spells have multiple ways to target and hurt you. I'm not so sure about access to it, but I'd probably make a Wizard dedicate a spell slot to this in some way. It's not as powerful as simply cancelling a spell though, so you should get more than one use of it.

 

[slobster]

That said, an effective counterspell as a spell (i.e. very limited use, and Vancian types need to memorize it ahead of time) is fine. I even took it a step further and invented a spell "Arcane Denial"

Yeah, that spell seems like it would work out because it doesn't turn someone who prepares it into a dedicated counterspeller. You cast it, resolve it, then go back to being a mage. You aren't forced to expend all your actions to shut down an enemy mage.

I mean, I probably wouldn't include it in my games out of balance concerns, but it sounds like it worked well for yours and that's good. It's another point against the idea of having devoted counterspell mages who spend all their time with two islands untapped, daring the enemies to cast something expensive.

 

[bogmad]

My starting point would be: how about just making Dispel Magic allowed to be cast as a reaction, when specifically targetting a spell being cast?

Bam. Simplest solution. Easy to implement. If you want to make it a little less cut and dry, make it where using dispell magic in that manner results in a contest between the two casters to see if the spell is dispelled or not. No additional rules or mechanics needed.

EDIT (one addition): And it's easy enough with the flexibility of the system so far for a DM to rule that a powerful caster might gain advantage in such a contest against a weaker foe.

 

[GameDoc]

Bam. Simplest solution. Easy to implement. If you want to make it a little less cut and dry, make it where using dispell magic in that manner results in a contest between the two casters to see if the spell is dispelled or not. No additional rules or mechanics needed.

EDIT (one addition): And it's easy enough with the flexibility of the system so far for a DM to rule that a powerful caster might gain advantage in such a contest against a weaker foe.

Yep. That's going on my list of suggestions for the next playtest survey.

 

[Li Shenron]

Bam. Simplest solution. Easy to implement. If you want to make it a little less cut and dry, make it where using dispell magic in that manner results in a contest between the two casters to see if the spell is dispelled or not. No additional rules or mechanics needed.

EDIT (one addition): And it's easy enough with the flexibility of the system so far for a DM to rule that a powerful caster might gain advantage in such a contest against a weaker foe.

Yeah I think that some "contest" roll would be interesting, so that the success is not automatic. I guess that there is quite a popular image in fantasy of two wizards' spells "clashing" against each other until one of them surpasses the other.

Of course some balance consideration would be needed...

 

[GameDoc]

Yeah I think that some "contest" roll would be interesting, so that the success is not automatic. I guess that there is quite a popular image in fantasy of two wizards' spells "clashing" against each other until one of them surpasses the other.

Of course some balance consideration would be needed...

The most iconic image of this to me is from Conan the Destroyer - the scene where Akiro and Thoth-Amon are wizard dueling over a door. No flash or explosions. Thoth tries to close the door magically and Akiro makes a magical gesture and stares at it to try and keep it open, groaning and squinting from the effort.

 

[Ainamacar]

My starting point would be: how about just making Dispel Magic allowed to be cast as a reaction, when specifically targetting a spell being cast?

Bam. Simplest solution. Easy to implement. If you want to make it a little less cut and dry, make it where using dispell magic in that manner results in a contest between the two casters to see if the spell is dispelled or not. No additional rules or mechanics needed.

This has merits, but it probably does not handle extended contests between casters nor the almost certain action denial abilities of multiple casters vs. a single one. This is a critical issue to address because trading an action to deny an action is not, in general, the even trade it appears to be. At the very least the overall contribution of an action to the outcome of a combat must be weighted with what a creature can accomplish with an action, and also its relative contribution to the total ability of one side of the conflict. For example, if 20 weak creatures are fighting 4 strong ones in an otherwise fair fight (i.e. ignoring the action denial abilities in question each side is equally likely to win) it is clear that the worth of 1 action is not equivalent between sides. A contest can be used to help balance out the difference in weight from one creature to another, but it takes no consideration at all of the relative contribution to either side's overall power. If the weak creature has a 20% chance to deny a strong creature's action then in this scenario on average it will be an even trade. The same counterspeller vs. the same caster in a different scenario, however, might have a drastically different cost-benefit analysis.

I'm not saying the game must be written so that the relative contribution of action-denying abilities must adhere to even trades. After all, so much of the emergent tactical depth comes from trying to use these considerations to one's advantage, especially as combat ebbs and flows. Moreover, I want an isolated action that involves only a subset of creatures to have the same distribution of outcomes whenever that same subset is affected, regardless of who else may be in the battle. What I am saying is that I would like the game to be more robust to different numbers of combatants vis-à-vis action economy. This not only mechanically, but with respect to the metagame effects of loss of creature agency, which can have an outsized impact on player enjoyment. A robust game will make sure that the tactically sound options for creatures also tend to increase (or maintain) player engagement. Occasional action loss can be salutary, while frequent action loss trains players to leave the table and grab a frosty beverage. Furthermore, fighting the rules rather than simply using them places a larger burden on the DM, which can negatively influence the game in unpredictable ways.

By leveraging a spell one also introduces quite different counterspelling capabilities depending on who is doing it. That isn't necessarily bad, these differences might be interesting rather than unfortunate, but the secondary effects need consideration. For example, a spontaneous caster will probably be a significantly more flexible counterspeller than a Vancian caster. It would not shock me if at-will dispel magic makes an appearance somewhere in the game, either. It also means creatures without spells that might perform tasks equivalent to counterspelling would need their own methods, reducing the universality of the method.

Finally, it means that counterspelling is a thing that turns on at 5th level or so, and maybe later in practice because at 5th level that spell slot might be the single most valuable resource the creature has. This feels a bit uneven to me within the fiction and also mechanically because the action economy, the principle target of this form of counterspelling, is present in its basic form throughout the entire game. In other words, if counterspelling as action denial is mechanically fine at 5th level, it is probably also fine at 1st level.

Now, dispel magic is a really great choice for some form of counterspelling, I won't deny that. I'm not convinced, however, that it makes a compelling backbone for the same. Of course, I haven't offered a mechanically specific compelling alternative either, so this post emphasizes the "criticism" part of constructive criticism a bit more than I'd like.

 

[Li Shenron]

This has merits, but it probably does not handle extended contests between casters nor the almost certain action denial abilities of multiple casters vs. a single one.

Definitely not, but I think it's probably for the best to stay simple, to provide a mechanic that is usable by every gaming group*.

Then eventually the concept can be expanded with a tiny module / optional rules to handle more complicated scenario.

*At least in my experience, few people in 3e used the counterspelling rules just because using them was not worth the effort of learning the mechanic. Only if you wanted to explore the concept and build some kind of specialist around it...

Personally I think this is a general problem in the 3e approach: too many topics were addressed with countless "what if?" questions which lead the designers to add too many modifiers, too many rules detail, too many steps (grappling!), too many exceptions, too many circumstances... It's all good for a group who loves the details, but it's a nightmare for others.