D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[SkidAce]

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.

I don't like that this turns into an either/or decision or debate.

Let pcs and monsters use the same FRAMEWORK (to an extent), but the monster BLOCK can be more COMPACT, representing only what you need quickly for combat or rp.

I.e. mostly like it currently is/was in 5e.

Avoid the extremes of monsters built completely different or having full character sheets, but use similar rules/framework.*




*I mean. all the way back to 1E, I most certainly did not flesh out the 18th bad guy necromancer as a full pc, merely used/planned his main actions and maybe gave him a special ability.

 

[SkidAce]

Here's what I don't get. Why would you give a monster "Fiery Explosions"? Why wouldn't you just write this:

Fireball [Spell V,S,M] Standard Action. Range 150ft. 8d6 Damage in a 20ft-radius-sphere. Dexterity Save for half damage.

Why can't we both have the npc spellcasters use the same spells that PCs use and have them included in monster stat blocks in a form that makes them easy for the DM to use on the fly?

Quoted for Cosmic Truth!

 

[SuperTD]

I feel like people are massively overreacting to this. Of the two stat blocks we've been able to make out (War Priest and Bard), neither has had the spellcasting actually removed. They still cast spells, just each is now at will or 1/day. They've been given a single spell like ability each that can be used as their attack. If the War Priest wants to banish you, flamestrike or cast hold person they're still casting a spell.

The only issue in my mind is the fact that these abilities aren't even labelled as magic, which they clearly are. These aren't innate monster abilities, they're humanoids manipulating magic.

 

[SkidAce]

Easy to adjudicate, but seems to be replacing the "looking it up" problem with an "adjudicate" problem. So why?

Basically I will probably go;

Is it a foe that has learned magic (counterspell applies), or is it an innate ability (does not apply).?

 

[Dausuul]

The great thing is that depneding on one's perspective, the flaw being corrected is counterspelling being nerfed - or counterspelling being too strong

Even if one does consider counterspell too strong (I'm on the fence personally), this is a lousy solution. If the DM uses exclusively "new format" monsters, it's tantamount to banning the spell altogether, but without actually doing players the courtesy of telling them the spell is banned--they just have a spell that never works. And if the DM mixes new and old format, then counterspell works or doesn't work arbitrarily based on which format the monster was created in.

If counterspell is too strong, it should be honestly and openly nerfed, not sabotaged behind the scenes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Skill checks normally take actions. So "default" rules are worst then the optional rules. Lack of rules either to auto-identify or not is not a "default rule" in the direction you want to make your point. Taking the stance that the rules don't say you need to make a check means you know it is just as invalid as saying the rules don't say you can identify so you can't. Neither is supported by the rules.

That’s an assumed “default”. There is no such actual rule.

 

[TheSword]

Easy to adjudicate, but seems to be replacing the "looking it up" problem with an "adjudicate" problem. So why?

Basically I will probably go;

Is it a foe that has learned magic (counterspell applies), or is it an innate ability (does not apply).?

Because it is rare to need adjudicate whereas the monsters will use those abilities a lot.

For me I don’t really care. I suspect it will be obvious which spells are which and I fully internet for them to be affected by counterspell and globe of invulnerability.

However, I’ll be honest I’ve been playing 5e for a long long time and I’ve never seen either spell used in game. I’ve taken the time to learn counterspell many times, just never found the right time. It’s always been a crap shoot.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The counter play which counterspell enables, is the cool thing.

Mindlessly tanking spells because there is no choice, no option, is poor gameplay.

Finally, Blue instant/stack based permission is the peak of MTG game design, and the game would be dramatically worse without it.

I really disagree. Anything designed to prevent your opponent from enjoying the game is poor design, imo.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I haven't played Magic in a long time, but when I did I played primarily blue decks for precisely this reason. Control/negation abilities are fun.

Only for the person playing them. Not so much on the other side.

 

[J.Quondam]

And taking all offensive casting for all monsters that do that and making it un-counterspell-able is not a nerf? Sorry, you are just factually wrong on that. It's like if all monsters now had fire resistance and your stance was "firebolt wasn't nerfed because they didn't errata it".

But are they really "taking all offensive casting for all monsters" away?

I don't have Witchlight, so I haven't seen other stat blocks, but from the couple I have seen, it looks like NPCs still have regular spell lists with beefier spells that are counterspellable as normal. The abilities in question seem like they just replace common low-ish level spells, in order to complement other attacks with something suitably "magical" to match the theme of the monster*.

Am I wrong? Is there really more to it than that?


* There certainly are valid questions about how these interact with other spells, magic resistance, etc, though!