D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Lyxen]

Let's count them.

Seeing that a large number of them affect other monsters, and a significant number of others are corner cases or abilities of a few out of about 100 archetypes, the overall number is again not significant.

A number of them were not corner cases.

No, a number of them were not indicated by you as being corner cases, but I think not many people will agree that something affecting the capstone of a subclass against certain types of foes who don't even usually have spellcasting in their traits is anything else than a rare corner case.

And this is objectively and provably false. Counterspell, Dispell Magic,

No, you are always counting the same ones. Even dispel magic is not affected, since all the affected spells for now are instantaneous damaging spells which would not even be affected by dispel magic.

So your list is still down to one, counterspell. Which, again, is hardly significant considering that the changes so far affect only 1-2 spells of casters, which are rare encounters anyway since most adversaries both in Monster Manual and in published adventures.

Minor, at best.

the paladin auras

Singular, please, only for one subclass and only against certain types of foe at level 20. Yes, really a game changer that one. And the cleansing touch does not even apply, see dispel magic above.

, etc. will be commonly encountered since many encounters have spellcasting and/or innate spellcasting.

No, they don't. Once more, please use some real stats from actual modules, not your personal views as to what should happen in modules.

 

[Mirtek]

OK, this thread has run it's course. Nothing to see here folks, it's over.

I disagree that there's nothing to see unless you can back that up by citing a RAW that proves that our vision is blocked

 

[MoonSong]

A weaker stun that only takes your reaction.

And one of your precious know spells as a sorcerer. Known spells that are in extremely short supply and are never enough...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry to hear that. My wife is diabetic, so I know from the other side what that's like, as well as when she doesn't eat enough.

Oof. Yeah. ADHD and diabetes are a scary combo some days, when I take my metformin but forget to eat… lol

 

[Maxperson]

Seeing that a large number of them affect other monsters, and a significant number of others are corner cases or abilities of a few out of about 100 archetypes, the overall number is again not significant.

Maybe you avoid putting spellcasters in your game, but in every game I've ever run or played in, they were commonly encountered. Your personal game doesn't make them insignificant.

No, a number of them were not indicated by you as being corner cases, but I think not many people will agree that something affecting the capstone of a subclass against certain types of foes who don't even usually have spellcasting in their traits is anything else than a rare corner case.

If by "don't even usually have spellcasting" you mean all of them do, then you would be correct!!

Here's the list of Demon lords from Mordenkainen's

1. Baphomet - Has innate spellcasting
2. Demogorgon - Has innate spellcasting
3. Fraz-Urb'Luu - Has innate spellcasting
4. Graz'zt - Has innate spellcasting
5. Juiblex - Has innate spellcasting
6. Orcus? You guessed it! Has innate spellcasting.
7. Yeenoghu - Innate spellcasting!
8. Zuggtmoy - Has innate spellcasting.

That's all of demon lords. Note that they are not usually encountered alone and many of the lesser and greater demons also have......................innate spellcasting!

Now for the Archdevils

1. Bael - Innate spellcasting
2. Geryon - Innate spellcasting
3. Hutijin - Without looking I guessed he would have innate spellcasting. I was right.
4. Moloch - Innate spellcasting
5. Titivilus - Innate spellcasting
6. Zariel - Innate spellcasting

That's 100% of the Archdevils/Dukes of Hell as well. I'm beginning to think that you didn't look before you claimed that they, "don't even usually have spellcasting." You did remember that I said Demon Lords and Archdevils, right? This wasn't another example of you trying to twist things away from what I said, was it?

No, you are always counting the same ones. Even dispel magic is not affected, since all the affected spells for now are instantaneous damaging spells which would not even be affected by dispel magic.

That was not said. It was just said that the big spells would be abilities, not that all of them were damaging spells. The spells that make them the CR that they are supposed to be will be actions now.

Singular, please, only for one subclass and only against certain types of foe at level 20. Yes, really a game changer that one. And the cleansing touch does not even apply, see dispel magic above.

Sorry, my bad. Cleansing Touch was the second one. Can't remove a spell effect if it ain't a spell any longer.

No, they don't. Once more, please use some real stats from actual modules, not your personal views as to what should happen in modules.

Dungeon of the Mad Mage
1. Halaster
2. Trenzia
3. Midna
4. Rizzeryl
5. Marta
6. Ilnor Telenna
7. T'rissa Auvryndar
8. Barlgura
9. Barlgura #2
10. Drider Spellcaster
11. Mind Flayer
12. Preeta

I didn't bother with the myriad of Drow, even though the party might want to counter or dispel the Faerie Fire or Levitate abilities. There's a dozen and I only looked at the first 3(out of 23) levels.

 

[Maxperson]

Oof. Yeah. ADHD and diabetes are a scary combo some days, when I take my metformin but forget to eat… lol

And I have ADHD, so that I can directly relate to that. That's a tough combo. At least my wife has a nearly eidetic memory, which is horrible for arguments, but great for reminding me of things that I've forgotten.

 

[Xetheral]

It may help to think about how total cover works. If you don't make a stealth check to hide, you don't have advantage on attacks and attacks against you don't have disadvantage. You just can't be seen directly. You can compare this to the wording of invisibility. If the rules were that not being seen gives you advantage and others disadvantage, the second point of invisibility would be completely redundant.

In such a case, that benefit would instead be conferred by having total concealment, and the text for invisible would simply note that you have total concealment..

(Bold emphasis added.) Quick note: the rules do say that being unseen gives you advantage and others disadvantage. It's in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section of the PHB. And yes, that makes the second bullet point of the Invisibile condition redundant--I thus think the best reading of the second bullet point is as a reiteration for clarity, rather than a separate effect.

 

[Bill Zebub]

OK, this thread has run it's course. Nothing to see here folks, it's over.

We see what you did there.

 

[MerricB]

Just a couple of rules notes...

Many actions of creatures have the wording "+4 ranged spell attack" or similar (see Flameskulls). This does not mean that these actions are spells. It does mean they are magical.

"Fire Ray. Ranged Spell Attack: +5 to hit, range 30 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (3d6) fire damage."

(AFAIK, "spell" attack means it uses the spellcasting ability score to determine attack bonus, and that's about it. The magical part comes from Sage Advice's ruling on whether a dragon breath is magical).

The new War Priest has a Holy Fire ability that has no attack in it; it's a saving throw. By the same ruling, that action is NOT magical.

But the intent of these changes is that Holy Fire is a spell, from what I can gather.

Compare with the Death Knight, who throws a "magical ball of fire". That's not a spell, but it is magical, because the text says it is.

"Hellfire Orb (1/Day). The death knight hurls a magical ball of fire that explodes at a point it can see within 120 feet of it."

###

I do note that we're delving into things that are badly defined by the rules. Indeed, a large part of them do not exist in a good state in the rule books. It is eye-opening reading the Sage's explanation of "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" and realising that this answer is made up of whole cloth.

And, because of this lack of definition in these rules, we're running into a bunch of player abilities (and monster abilities) suddenly reducing in value.

 

[Lyxen]

Maybe you avoid putting spellcasters in your game, but in every game I've ever run or played in, they were commonly encountered.

My personal game isn't significant here, but neither is yours, see below for actual stats, even when you tried to use the one publication in which there are the most spellcasters, you did not go above 3% of encounters affected. THREE PERCENT, and that's with me being generous, allowing you to count the mind flayer (which has already his mind blast as a specific trait) and grossly underestimating the number of encounters in the book.

THREE PERCENT, and with you choosing which adventure book to use...

If by "don't even usually have spellcasting" you mean all of them do, then you would be correct!!

No, it's not "spellcasting", it's "innate spellcasting", which is not the same thing. And you did not count the fact that all of them have powerful attacks and other traits which, once more, make the potential translation of SOME damaging spells as attacks once more insignificant. And finally, to put the final nail in the coffin, because of this, those I have checked DO NOT EVEN HAVE DAMAGING SPELLS in their list. So they would not even be affected by the new statblock !

To prove this, I have taken the first few of your list and checked, Baphomet has no damaging spell. Neither does Demogorgon. Their spellcasting is actually almost an insignificant attribute compared to the rest of the statblock. As for Bael, yes, he has Wall of Fire, oh my god, I'm sure that they will take an effort to put this in a specific trait to compare to all of his attacks and legendary actions. Ah yes, he also has Symbol, but it's not damaging and actually much more powerful than a pitiful Wall of Fire. And you know what, his teleport is already a trait and therefore not counterspellable.

Come on, once more this makes the potential changes totally insignificant compared to very rare abilities of very, very few PCs...

That was not said. It was just said that the big spells would be abilities, not that all of them were damaging spells. The spells that make them the CR that they are supposed to be will be actions now.

And once, more, I judge on facts in the books ONLY damaging spells have made the cut, because damage is the factor used for CR computation.

Sorry, my bad. Cleansing Touch was the second one. Can't remove a spell effect if it ain't a spell any longer.

I had taken care of that one, since only damaging spells which are usually instant have been affected by the change so far (and not spells which are actually far more dangerous like Maze, Polymorph, even Wish) , it's like Dispel Magic, the change has absolutely zero effect on play.

So you are still at a count of ONE not totally insignificant effect so far, counterspell, which is, in itself, more than minor. So "many" indeed... sigh

Dungeon of the Mad Mage
1. Halaster
2. Trenzia
3. Midna
4. Rizzeryl
5. Marta
6. Ilnor Telenna
7. T'rissa Auvryndar
8. Barlgura
9. Barlgura #2
10. Drider Spellcaster
11. Mind Flayer
12. Preeta

Fantastic (and counting the mind flayer is fair exactly how, since their attack abilities are already in other traits ? And the Barlgura - twice - again has no damaging spells), and out of how many encounters in the book ?

I won't count all the encounters in the book, but I have counted at least 23 in the first level, 30 in the 10th level and 15 in level 18 (so that I have a good spread). I'll be generous and make it an even 20 encounters per level (and that is really underestimating it), for 23 levels, so that is 460 encounters. And out of this, you give me 12 spellcasters affected, so that is exactly 2.6% percent of encounters affected. LESS THAN THREE PERCENT !

But feel free to count again and prove your point, I'm not worried.

This is laughable.