D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Scribe]

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.

Its not bullying, you shake hands, and shuffle up for the next game.

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.

What sport has opposing teams running WILDLY different approach's to the game?

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.

The discussion began, with commentary about blue stack based permission, aka counter spells. If we are instead talking about what are essentially prison or stax decks...that is a completely different discussion as THOSE strategies have effectively not been part of competitive magic for a very long time.

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

Yes, like counter spells, sweepers, and cantrips.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

See. I could have forgiven the mistake in letting Companions see print, if they’d had the integrity to ban them all from every format rather than resort to power level errata, which they had previously been dedicated to not doing again. That decision is what proved to me that they didn’t care about the health of the game any more.

As to this.



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.

Oh, without a doubt. That was absolutely the best constructed format in Magic history (if you could afford it). And the best limited format was original Innistrad draft.

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

Eh, I have my cube. Flesh and Blood is really neat too, I’m sorely tempted to buy into constructed for that. The high price tags on singles fit constructed are a little intimidating, but when I remember you usually only need one copy of any given equipment, it starts to look a bit more reasonable.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It was wild for me when I went to college, and suddenly my “for fun” decks were downright oppressive. My very good friend wanted to play but wasn’t very good at assessing board states and didn’t really like doing combat math, so I built her a blue/white life gain mill deck, on a pretty tight budget, that I thought was a pile of jank but would at least give her a chance to win in a way she would enjoy. That deck developed a reputation among our Vampire troupe for being unbeatable.

 

[Scribe]

See. I could have forgiven the mistake in letting Companions see print, if they’d had the integrity to ban them all from every format rather than resort to power level errata, which they had previously been dedicated to not doing again. That decision is what proved to me that they didn’t care about the health of the game any more.

And Maro defended it. Like I KNOW he's smarter than that, and a better designer than that. I just cannot fathom how that mechanic is considered, and gets pushed.

It literally run's counter to the game's foundational principles of balance. Mind boggling...

 

[billd91]

What sport has opposing teams running WILDLY different approach's to the game?

Basketball has a history of imposing rules to ban certain types of play and promote certain other kinds. The NBA used to ban the zone defense (and California teams in the NCAA used to whine mightily about midwest teams using it in the tournament). And the NCAA banned dunking for a while with the Lew Alcindor rule.
So, yeah, the NBA has imposed rules because certain kinds of play are so different or “unfun” for influential teams or fans.

 

[Scribe]

Basketball has a history of imposing rules to ban certain types of play and promote certain other kinds. The NBA used to ban the zone defense (and California teams in the NCAA used to whine mightily about midwest teams using it in the tournament). And the NCAA banned dunking for a while with the Lew Alcindor rule.
So, yeah, the NBA has imposed rules because certain kinds of play are so different or “unfun” for influential teams or fans.

I dont consider Burn vs Control, to be the same as Zone vs Triangle or whatever, or (I dont really know basketball) something like the West Coast vs Wishbone Offense in Football.

Its a completely different approach to the game's primary goals. Its like...Basketball vs Football. Both are scoring points, both have a ball, but they are different games. Baseball sends out 1 offensive player at a time to the plate, and the mechanics of who is sent out may change, but they are only ever going to face 1 pitcher at a time.

I dont know, probably time for me to pack it in anyway but comparing 2 completely different decks in magic, to 'sport' is just not going to work for me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Basketball has a history of imposing rules to ban certain types of play and promote certain other kinds. The NBA used to ban the zone defense (and California teams in the NCAA used to whine mightily about midwest teams using it in the tournament). And the NCAA banned dunking for a while with the Lew Alcindor rule.
So, yeah, the NBA has imposed rules because certain kinds of play are so different or “unfun” for influential teams or fans.

Also, in SCA heavy fighting, you basically can’t physically overpower someone in a fight. Like, shield bashing, and just pushing people down because you’re 2 feet and 100 lbs bigger than them, isn’t legal. It ruins the fun for people who lack bulk, in a sport where we don’t separate for weight class (or weapons used).

 

[Charlaquin]

I dont consider Burn vs Control, to be the same as Zone vs Triangle or whatever, or (I dont really know basketball) something like the West Coast vs Wishbone Offense in Football.

Its a completely different approach to the game's primary goals. Its like...Basketball vs Football. Both are scoring points, both have a ball, but they are different games. Baseball sends out 1 offensive player at a time to the plate, and the mechanics of who is sent out may change, but they are only ever going to face 1 pitcher at a time.

I dont know, probably time for me to pack it in anyway but comparing 2 completely different decks in magic, to 'sport' is just not going to work for me.

Haha you want to talk about playing a totally different game that your opponent, try playing against Legacy or Vintage Dredge.

 

[Maxperson]

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

So was mountain, lotus, channel, fireball. Until Alliances came out and Force of Will appeared. Then it was more fun for them.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

No. The Drow has no need to wiggle his finger or utter any words in order to levitate. It's an ability. The Sorcerer class is explicitly an intuitive understand of how to cast arcane spells, with a metamagic twist.

Not all innate magic is the same. Not all innate magic = spells.

Semantics determined by individual DM's I'm thinking. For my, "if it's not able to be done using the natural reality of the current Prime Material Plane ('campaign world'), then it's magic". Being able to "tap into" or "understand and manipulate" is irrelevant ...the end result is "it's magic".

Sure. I agree with that. The problem is that Counterspell does not counter magic. It counters spells.

Or not. There was a rule in there for the DM to ignore that, but with advice that it could unbalance things. Not that psionics are relevant here. We're talking counterspell and nothing allowed a 3e wizard to counterspell psionic levitate, even though counterspelling existed in 3e.

Now I'm going to play the semantics card...

Page201, PHB:
"What is a Spell?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression."

To me, this is defining of what a 'spell', mechanically, is in the 5e game. Now, most spells in the PHB are going to be what are commonly assumed when the word "Spell" is used (re: Fireball, Dispel Magic, Gate, Polymorph, etc), to be sure. BUT...what I just quoted does NOT make that distinction; it's defining 'spell' as an expression of magic...like a Beholders eye powers.

Just to be clear, the issue here isn't really what is "magic" or not. It's about what is specifically a spell, for the purposes of the spell counterspell or abilities like the Mage Slayer feat that operate specifically on "spells".

As I semantically pointed out... spells aren't spells only. Unless, of course, the DM rules they are. Which is cool. As I've said, I have no problem with a DM ruling that way and I'd happily play in a game where that was the case.

And, before it goes there...it probably has already, but anyway... I DO NOT think this needs any sort of "errata". Just leave it as is and let individual DM's and groups decide how far a "spell" covers in terms of what is/isn't, well, "magic". It makes for a MUCH more interesting and diverse playing field. Differing opinions, outlooks, preferences, etc when running D&D is a GOOD THING! It should be lauded, not vilified. Well, imnsho, of course.

Even under the current rules you can't Counterspell a beholder ray, even though they are magic. The Beholder is a perfect example under the original rules of a creature with magical actions that are like spells, but are not spells and therefore not counterable. So far I've not heard about anyone who has been confused or complained about it being inconsistent.

See above.

In my game, yeah, you can Counterspell a Beholder's eye stalk effects... otherwise the DM would have to say "No, you can't Dispel Magic on your buddy who you believe is Charmed from the Beholders first eyestalk...because it's not magic".

^_^

Paul L. Ming