D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Sacrosanct]

This stat block is needlessly cluttered to me.

I would rather just having the Fey Club assume Shillelagh. There is a lot more writing and numbers there than there needs to be.

fair point

In general there is a lot of text here. I feel like I need to prep just to run this creature and they're only CR 1.

Removing Concentration from the Entangle effect removes some counterplay from the PCs too. Typically these sorts of effects have Concentration so that they can be disrupted.

do you see the problem? You're saying there is too much text and immediately follow up with how there isn't concentration mechanics listed as well (which is more text). That's the balancing act. in order to capture and replicate the mechanics of spells and how spells are impacted/influenced by outside forces, while at the same time removing spell lists and putting each spell as an individual action, you end up with a lot more text in the statblock.

If you want everything listed in the statblock, you're gonna have text. If you don't want text, you're gonna have spell lists that refer you to look those spells up in other books.

 

[SkidAce]

I've never understood the hate for counterspell. It's just a fun 'gotcha' moment between the players which adds more complexity to an otherwise straightforward game. Same with LRs. I think the people who get bent out of shape about them just don't like being told 'no' and/or have never done anything competitive like a sport before.

I liken it to american football. The quarterback doesn't throw a fit when he gets taken down before he can pass, he dusts himself off and goes. "okay, lets try again.'

As for the "it ruins my encounters by shutting down my threats." Good. That's what the spell, and the players, are supposed to be doing. If you don't like that, make more dynamic encounters where not everything hinges on a single enemy casting a single spell. It isn't that hard. I do it every week.

I understand though that I may be on the out with opinion, as I also think 'fun' is the worst word in game design.

I was with you until the last sentence.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's not fun to die to Turn 3 lethal from a Red Bolt deck.

It's not fun to have your hand shredded, and a creature kill you while you have no answer.

It's not fun to have a stalled out board state with a mass of creatures doing nothing on both sides.

It's not fun to die to an infinite combo.

It's not fun to die to a hexproof stupid boggle.

It's CERTAINLY not fun to lose to a bunch of pushed colorless creatures with stapled on enter the board or on cast effects.

I guess Magic simply isn't a very good game?

Or.

All are accepted ways to try and win the game, and it is not your job to enable the fun of your opponent.

I mean, WotC has found over time that some ways to lose are more unfun than others. Mostly, the ones where you don’t get to actually play magic - whether because you have no land to pay for anything, you have no cards in hand to cast, or everything you do cast gets countered, are the worst. Obviously ultra-fast combo or burn decks can also lead to a similar situation where you’re dead before you’ve had the chance to do anything, but such decks can usually be interacted with, and are often fragile enough that they can be stopped with just one or two well-timed disruption spells. Which is why over time counter spells have gotten weaker, but they will never go away completely. They have to walk a fine line of keeping combo in check without making control too dominant.

Well, that was the direction until FIRE design or whatever they called it. Now they just push the hell out of whatever the new thing is and ban it if it becomes too dominant.

 

[King Brad]

I was with you until the last sentence.

It's a terrible word because it's nebulous and subjective. Things can be fun while not necessarily being the dictionary definition of fun. Fun can be something in the moment but not afterwards and something can be frustrating but afterwards considered fun in retrospect.

I could go on, but this isn't the thread for that, I don't suspect.

 

[Scribe]

I mean, WotC has found over time that some ways to lose are more unfun than others. Mostly, the ones where you don’t get to actually play magic - whether because you have no land to pay for anything, you have no cards in hand to cast, or everything you do cast gets countered, are the worst. Obviously ultra-fast combo or burn decks can also lead to a similar situation where you’re dead before you’ve had the chance to do anything, but such decks can usually be interacted with, and are often fragile enough that they can be stopped with just one or two well-timed disruption spells. Which is why over time counter spells have gotten weaker, but they will never go away completely. They have to walk a fine line of keeping combo in check without making control too dominant.

Well, that was the direction until FIRE design or whatever they called it. Now they just push the hell out of whatever the new thing is and ban it if it becomes too dominant.

FIRE was an absolute disaster, and actually should fall under some kind of professional negligence. I am not even kidding. I dont know exactly when they decided to throw away their integrity and just say 'yeah just push it out and ban it out of Standard if its a problem' but to even RELEASE the Companion mechanic was when I knew that the people at the helm didnt care about the health of the game itself.

As to this.

I mean, WotC has found over time that some ways to lose are more unfun than others.

The most egregious examples are relegated to Legacy, Vintage, or Commander, and even then Legacy was (prior to FIRE) very interactive. The funny thing is FIRE ruined even those overpowered and broken formats!

I'll go to my grave believing that Modern, during roughly 2013-2015 was the best example of the games potential, and no constructed format was or ever will be better from a perspective of archetype support and competitive balance.

And they ruined it for bloody Eldrazi, and banned Twin, and I'll literally never in my life get over it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not fun to die to Turn 3 lethal from a Red Bolt deck.

Fast "I got ganked in turn 3 holy crap!" losses are very fun.

It's not fun to have your hand shredded, and a creature kill you while you have no answer.

It can be.

It's not fun to have a stalled out board state with a mass of creatures doing nothing on both sides.

I agree. Using this as an intentional strategy is crappy play, at best.

It's not fun to die to an infinite combo.

Depends on the combo. If there is some element of "If I had the right cards I could counteract this strategy and still have a shot at the win", then yeah, it's fun.

It's not fun to die to a hexproof stupid boggle.

I don't think I've experienced that, but I don't see why it wouldn'tbe.

It's CERTAINLY not fun to lose to a bunch of pushed colorless creatures with stapled on enter the board or on cast effects.

I guess Magic simply isn't a very good game?

It seems more, to me, like perhaps you just have trouble having fun while losing?

Or.

All are accepted ways to try and win the game, and it is not your job to enable the fun of your opponent.

This is a pretty textbook bad sportsman attitude.

 

[Scribe]

This is a pretty textbook bad sportsman attitude.

Not remotely, perhaps you simply dont play competitive games which have a variety of archetypes that are all supported, and all acceptable ways to play the game?

There are many many people who would do nothing but play Control mirrors all day. There are many many people who would play Burn mirrors all day, or Midrange, or Combo, or Elves, or whatever other archetype you can imagine, and thats perfectly fine and ok.

Within a competitive format, for a head to head game, where there is (outside of a draw) a winner, and a loser, anything which is legal, is an acceptable choice.

And if you honestly are going to tell me that sitting with an empty hand while a creature beats you down is fun, but having 1 card countered, by 1 card is 'not fun' then our perspectives on balance, design, interactivity, and fun are simply different, which is fine as well.

Sitting there while you are desperate for an answer while your opponent goes.

Turn 1 Mountain, Haste Creature Swing
Turn 2 Draw, Mountain, Bolt Bolt, Swing
Turn 3 Draw, Mountain, Bolt Bolt, Bolt, Swing for Lethal?

Yeah, gg, fun...for the Burn player.

 

[billd91]

This is a pretty textbook bad sportsman attitude.

It pretty much isn‘t. You can’t control the other player’s attitude whether you’re losing or you’re beating them. You can only control your own. It‘s over-the-top grousing about being beat, whether because of bad luck or playing a superior opponent, that’s bad sportsmanship in these examples.

 

[Eubani]

It is possible they may add a DC into the description for dispels, counterspells and other spell affecting things. I don't see them saying that the actions are spells that aren't spells.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not remotely, perhaps you simply dont play competitive games which have a variety of archetypes that are all supported, and all acceptable ways to play the game?

lol no. I fight in the SCA, play casual baseball (ie not in any league, it's quite competitive), Magic, and play various competitive video games. I enjoy competition. The thing that made me stop playing MtG for many years was that it didn't feel good to win in ways that denied any ability to play the game for the other player. It reminded me of being a bully in middle school, more than of being good at something.

There are many many people who would do nothing but play Control mirrors all day. There are many many people who would play Burn mirrors all day, or Midrange, or Combo, or Elves, or whatever other archetype you can imagine, and thats perfectly fine and ok.

Within a competitive format, for a head to head game, where there is (outside of a draw) a winner, and a loser, anything which is legal, is an acceptable choice.

Um, no. This simply isn't true. The fact that it isn't true is one of the biggest drivers in changes to the rules of competitive activities of all kinds. Sports change rules quite often to avoid one individual or team from being able to completely prevent the opposition from playing the game at all.

And if you honestly are going to tell me that sitting with an empty hand while a creature beats you down is fun, but having 1 card countered, by 1 card is 'not fun' then our perspectives on balance, design, interactivity, and fun are simply different, which is fine as well.

This is an egregious mischaracterization of my argument. No one, except you in this post, is talking about being countered once. The discussion is about heavy denial/negation decks, that simply remove any ability for the opponent to engage with the game in any way.

Being overrun by a horde that you just can't get around in time to prevent it killing you is fun. There is tension, and a call and response with both parties doing things. Having every single thing you try to do be either countered or negated upon being played, creates a game where you just wasted your time not playing the game.

Sitting there while you are desperate for an answer while your opponent goes.

Turn 1 Mountain, Haste Creature Swing
Turn 2 Draw, Mountain, Bolt Bolt, Swing
Turn 3 Draw, Mountain, Bolt Bolt, Bolt, Swing for Lethal?

Yeah, gg, fun...for the Burn player.

When a strategy that "feels" fair, and doesn't negate your ability to play your hand and do things, wins very quickly, yeah, that is fun regardless of which side of it I'm on. Because I can...ya know...celebrate an effective and fair win.

It's also over a hell of a lot more quickly.

The only long games that are any fun are ones where both parties do things.