log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Why?

Because the new monster format has monsters not actually casting spells


Going back to the example in the first paragraph, a Level 5 PC could easily shut down that evil sorcerer trying to fireball his party, provided that the sorcerer was within range and the PC was ready to burn a 3rd level spell slot. However, they wouldn't be able to stop a "Fiery Explosion" action, as the description for that action does not describe it as a spell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


ReshiIRE

Adventurer
That seems to be a flaw to be corrected.
The great thing is that depneding on one's perspective, the flaw being corrected is counterspelling being nerfed - or counterspelling being too strong ;)

(I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I do think the way Pathfinder 2e does it seems better on paper once you understand the counteract rules. IMO, I would change Counterspell so that it doesn't have an upcast benefit OR change the rules so that a reactive spell cannot be used on the same turn as another levelled spell, and vice versa).
 


I know a lot of DMs will cheer for this, since they detest counterspell, but I feel this is a really bad idea. The change to spellcasters is a step in the wrong direction IMO, and I hope they at least keep the "character is a X level caster," allowing DMs to convert them backwards.
 

ReshiIRE

Adventurer
I certainly hope this change if it goes through will come with a change to legendary resistances - on paper (no play experience with this) it feels weird that some creatures can deny a player's spell (even if it is limited to a certain amount of times in a battle). Reducing the duration I can get, but on paper I think I'd find it a bit annoying, particular if it was a spell that just so happened to target a weak save.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Supporter
I think this is a bit of a strong reading, one spell has been made into an action, the remaining spells can all be counterspelled.

I think it‘s a good change that will make running spellcasting NPCs much easier. The new War Cleric example I saw looked great.
 

Mordhau

Adventurer
DM: The evil wizard throws a fiery explosion at you.
Wizard player: I counterspell it!
DM: You can't it's not a spell.
Wizard player: What is it then? What is he doing?
DM: He wiggles his fingers and says some eldritch words.
Player: So it is a spell! I counterspell.
DM: But it doesn't say it's a spell.
Player: So he's not an evil wizard then. Is he somesort of Genie perhaps. Hey cleric? You got a Banishment ready?
DM: No he's a wizard.
Player: So it's a spell.

I find that article a very weird take. The point to my mind seems to be making monster stat blocks easy to use. That's a good thing. I doubt they intentionally nerfed counterspell. They probably just didn't consider how ridiculously rules lawyery D&D players are. Possibly they need to add something like a spell keyword.

If counterspell is too powerful then FFS they should just fix counterspell. Offering false promises would not be fixing anything, it's just bad design ("We're going to pretend to give you something overpowered, but then we're going to screw you by never giving you a chance to use it. Hey, take that player who thought you had access to an ability that would actually be useful").
 
Last edited:

Scribe

Hero
DM: The evil wizard throws a fiery explosion at you.
Wizard player: I counterspell it!
DM: You can't it's not a spell.
Wizard player: What is it then? What is he doing?
DM: He wiggles his fingers and says some eldritch words.
Player: So it is a spell! I counterspell.
DM: But it doesn't say it's a spell.
Player: So he's not an evil wizard then. Is he somesort of Genie perhaps. Hey cleric? You got a Banishment ready?
DM: No he's a wizard.
Player: So it's a spell.
Exactly this.

You cannot (I mean they CAN...but you know) disconnect the narrative, from the function, to this degree and still maintain a 'live in world' type feeling.

Its so flawed it immediately breaks you out of the game. Just...no.

:(
 


jgsugden

Legend
I imagine they will discuss whether to errata these abilities with the word "spell" or not.

I do not like the idea that some spells are now counterspell proof due to a cosmetic change.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
IMO counterspell already has enough conditions to it working. Removing an even larger amount of situations where it could be effective is overkill.

Plus, as stated above, the new presentation is to make monster stat blocks easier, this seems to be an unintended effect.
 


Why the hell are the monsters not using magic spells anymore? This looks like they're taking monsters back to the 4e format, which was terrible.

I still stand by the 3e system of "the PCs and enemies" utilizing the same system and rules. That was far more streamlined than anything else I've seen after 3e.

5e is stupid easy enough. How is this "easier"? What was so wrong with them having spell slots like an actual caster? And a DM can arrange the spells as they see fit?
 


Mort

Legend
Supporter
Why the hell are the monsters not using magic spells anymore? This looks like they're taking monsters back to the 4e format, which was terrible.

I still stand by the 3e system of "the PCs and enemies" utilizing the same system and rules. That was far more streamlined than anything else I've seen after 3e.

5e is stupid easy enough. How is this "easier"? What was so wrong with them having spell slots like an actual caster? And a DM can arrange the spells as they see fit?

While "monsters use the same format as PCs" is fine from the player side, It gets unwieldly from the DM side FAST as levels increase. And the problem is monster's are not PCs - they are designed for a completely different purpose (for the DM to use as opposition) and anything that helps the DM toward that purpose is a big plus IMO.
 
Last edited:

Yeah I noticed that the other day. I would note, however, that at least for what we've seen the trend is mostly to pick one sort of mid-level spell attack that probably wouldn't be worth counterspelling anyway and make that a spell-like ability (the offbrand fireball of the hag in Witchlight notwithstanding).

Still, I wish they'd throw a "counts as a spell" clause on there. Not just for counterspellers but for all those other folks who have an ability that applies to spells and spells only, like say and Oath of Ancients Paladin. It seems like they're just setting DMs up to replace the time they would have spent looking up a spell with time they end up arguing with frustrated players.
 




Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top