D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Mirtek]

If it is keyed to work against spells, it simply does not work against Fiery Explosion.

The big doubt is whether this was what the designers intended with this change or if they just did a major brainfart and broke all the former interactions just due to not thinking about them at all.

And if it's the later then oh boy will fixing this make everything soo much more complicated than the simplification should have made it easier.

 

[Ancalagon]

The big doubt is whether this was what the designers intended with this change or if they just did a major brainfart and broke all the former interactions just due to not thinking about them at all.

And if it's the later then oh boy will fixing this make everything soo much more complicated than the simplification should have made it easier.

It smells like a major blunder - good for them a new ish edition is coming out

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the wording of Counterspell and Dispel Magic change in the revised rule books to allow them to counter these not-spell monster abilities. But, we’re going to have two years of this new style of monster design before the revised book comes out, so it is kind of necessary to decide what to do about them in the meantime (and in the future, if counterspell and dispel magic don’t end up being changed after all).

I wouldn't be surprised to see a change to Dispel Magic to allow it to dispel non-spell magical effects, but it seems like the monster change is aimed at Counterspell. If so, I doubt any change will be forthcoming. You generally don't fix something and then break it again.

 

[Mirtek]

but it seems like the monster change is aimed at Counterspell.

I doubt that, because it's not only counterspell that is affected.

I fear that they did not intend any monster change except an easier readable format. Any rule change that arises from this is a major misstake they made due to not thinking about all implications. Maybe they were too operationally blind to pure RAW interaction of the wordings they changed with nothing but increased simplicity in mind

 

[Maxperson]

SInce you are very much a partisan of the RAW, please point us at the section of the rules where it supports this.

AFAIK, nothing in the rules entitles a character to perceive anything that is happening, part from a single sentence about hiding and seeing a creature approaching.

That's the big one. Another is from surprise where if you aren't trying to be stealthy, you are noticed.

You are generally aware of what goes on around you in combat. That would include a wizard chanting, waving his fingers and thumbing bat poo. Without the caster being stealthy in some way(subtle spell, invisibility, etc.), you're going to notice a caster. If you read the components section on page 203 of the PHB, they are pretty darn noticeable.

But whether seeing someone casting a specific spell can be seen right in front of him, 10 feet away, 100 feet away, in sunlight, in moonlight, in plain sight, or at the back of the room hidden by all other combattants, I don't think that you'll find anything in the rules that entitles a character to see anything.

Obviously if there's dim light(moonlight), etc., that would possibly obscure thing. But again if you read the components section, spells being cast are really obvious.

 

[Maxperson]

I doubt that, because it's not only counterspell that is affected.

I fear that they did not intend any monster change except an easier readable format. Any rule change that arises from this is a major misstake they made due to not thinking about all implications. Maybe they were too operationally blind to pure RAW interaction of the wordings they changed with nothing but increased simplicity in mind

Counterspell and Dispel Magic are affected. What else is seriously affected by this? The resistance and advantage to spells, but if monster spellcasters retain their spells and only abilities that shouldn't have been spells in the first place are changed, I don't see this as a blunder, but rather a correction.

 

[Krachek]

I would agree that counterspell don’t affect cantrips and cantrip like effects.
Simply to avoid blind waste of spell slot.
I would agree that monster have one or two iconic surnatural abilities that cannot be shutdown by counterspell just to assure some decent fight back capacities.
The goal is to have interesting fights.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And, honestly, making it so that Counterspell isn't basically a required spell would be nice.

I wish that instead of a spell it were just an innate ability of the Wizard class, for which you could expend any spell slot, with higher spell slots being more likely to work.

 

[Maxperson]

And, honestly, making it so that Counterspell isn't basically a required spell would be nice.

I agree.

I wish that instead of a spell it were just an innate ability of the Wizard class, for which you could expend any spell slot, with higher spell slots being more likely to work.

I was thinking something similar. This thread has me thinking about Counterspell a lot and one of the things I'm mulling over is getting rid of it as a spell and making it a 1st level arcane class(not wizard) ability. It would be usable 3x per long rest and require a roll like the current spell uses if the spell to be countered is higher level than the slot used. That way it even though it's weaker than the current version, it would be free.

 

[Lyxen]

The big doubt is whether this was what the designers intended with this change or if they just did a major brainfart and broke all the former interactions just due to not thinking about them at all.

Once more, what has been broken ? There were already some monster traits which behaved like spells and were not, and in TWBtWL monsters still have a clear "Spellcasting" trait showing that these can be countered and dispelled.

It's only presentation, and it's a trial to make it easier to read, but all the critics (and possibly worried powergamers) can do is think that something has been "broken"?