D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Lyxen]

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.

Can you please elaborate why this does not make then spells at some level, in a 5e where natural language is used ? Or considering the SAC, which mentions, amongst the criteria "Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?"

(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).

On this one, I completely agree, they are magical and therefore counting for the most important thing which is magic resistance (which can affect quite a number of PCs).

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.

It's a bit hard to read honestly, a single word can make the difference for those who actually want to apply things extremely RAW.

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

I'm not sure what the intent is, honestly.

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."

And this is why the changes in TWBtWL are very minor, there were already a significant number of traits working that way even in the original monster manual, the death knight was actually using fireball in previous editions (I have not checked all of them, but it was the case in the Fiend Folio where it first appeared, "generate a 20-dice fireball"). But because it's a magical damaging attack which is major in its arsenal, it was already separate despite the fact that it would have been really easy to put it in the actual spellcasting trait of the knight.

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.

This is the part where I wholeheartedly agree with you, this was slapped on as a complete afterthought, and it's really lacking. It's one of the 3e things that I think could have been kept without them making the game too technical, the tags for the magic type. While I understand that they immediately make the game much more geeky and including much more technical jargon, it's one of those areas where it's fairly fundamental to the game.

That being said, it has NEVER caused any problem at our tables, we have been playing 5e twice a week at all levels since it came out, and the local rulings of the DMs have always been accepted by the players without any discussion, because they felt logical and in the right mood every time.

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.

Honestly no, some gain in value, some reduce in value, overall, once more, the effect is really minor across the game.

 

[MerricB]

Can you please elaborate why this does not make then spells at some level, in a 5e where natural language is used ? Or considering the SAC, which mentions, amongst the criteria "Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?"

Look at unarmed strikes.

 

[Lyxen]

Look at unarmed strikes.

Unarmed strikes are a really unclear area of the game, which honestly does not bother me since we have always considered it silly to train specifically for unarmed in a world where monsters can be made of lava, fire, acid, poison, etc. But if it's a spell attack, how does it not fall into the category of mentioning a spell ?

I'm just asking, by the way, to understand your position, nothing more.

 

[MerricB]

Unarmed strikes are a really unclear area of the game, which honestly does not bother me since we have always considered it silly to train specifically for unarmed in a world where monsters can be made of lava, fire, acid, poison, etc. But if it's a spell attack, how does it not fall into the category of mentioning a spell ?

I'm just asking, by the way, to understand your position, nothing more.

From numerous examples in the SAC, when you make an Unarmed Strike, you make a melee weapon attack. However, Unarmed Strike is not a weapon.

Thus having an ability that grants a "melee spell attack" does not imply that the ability is a spell.

Now, Jeremy might come by and rule "Oh, those abilities are spells", at which we start asking "what spell level is it?" and other inconvenient questions like that.

Cheers!

 

[Lyxen]

From numerous examples in the SAC, when you make an Unarmed Strike, you make a melee weapon attack. However, Unarmed Strike is not a weapon.

That is a technicality and that area is understood to be unclear, is this a reason to propagate that unclarity to other areas of the rules ?

Thus having an ability that grants a "melee spell attack" does not imply that the ability is a spell.

Well, I simply look at the PH and I see that: "Some spells also require an attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell attack depends on the
spellcasting ability of the spellcaster, as explained in chapter 10."

Now, Jeremy might come by and rule "Oh, those abilities are spells", at which we start asking "what spell level is it?" and other inconvenient questions like that.

It's true that spells are supposed to have levels, which would make some abilities from the MM a bit problematic, but since they are obviously fairly magical in nature, I don't think that it causes much trouble there anyway. The only thing is that it's easy for attack abilities, but save abilities don't get the same treatment.

 

[Krachek]

These days I change my mind everyday about this new anniversary edition. What I understand so far :

The Dev are serious when they tell about a revision or an evolution of the game. It won’t be fluff and text rewrite.

The Dev are still on growing mode for DnD. they aim for new players and truly want to help them fully step in the game, including the DM role.

at first I was considering this new format and the shutdown of counterspell overkill, but later as I watch the interview, I understand the need and purpose of this change.

So counterspell will become a hasbeen! As well as many other features and gimmicks that will be steamrolled by this revision.

 

[Lyxen]

These days I change my mind everyday about this new anniversary edition. What I understand so far :
The Dev are serious when they tell about a revision or an evolution of the game. It won’t be fluff and text rewrite.

2 years in advance and they are testing the waters. Of course, that long in advance, they are not going to sell that they are going to do almost nothing !

The Dev are still on growing mode for DnD. they aim for new players and truly want to help them fully step in the game, including the DM role.
at first I was considering this new format and the shutdown of counterspell overkill, but later as I watch the interview, I understand the need and purpose of this change.

That is exactly my perspective as well (also because there is no guarantee that newer players will stick around and all become grognards, there must be a higher turnover amongst newer players than older, and therefore a more volatile customer base), which is why I'm defending this change which I believe is still very minor, as it helps new DMs. Older DMs have absolutely zero problem dealing with this and allowing counterspell on spell-like abilities if it is what they prefer.

So counterspell will become a hasbeen! As well as many other features and gimmicks that will be steamrolled by this revision.

I wouldn't worry, because at the same time as they are revising, they might (without necessarily introducing tags like the 3e ones) clarify a bit more what is magic and what is not, what is counterspellable and what is not, and still maintain an interest for that spell. But given that it's a controversial one (much too easy (if you are not careful about limiting the perception of the adversaries) to use to shut down PCs or NPCs in particular, which is not always fun), I hope that it will see some revision for sure.

 

[Krachek]

2 years in advance and they are testing the waters. Of course, that long in advance, they are not going to sell that they are going to do almost nothing !



That is exactly my perspective as well (also because there is no guarantee that newer players will stick around and all become grognards, there must be a higher turnover amongst newer players than older, and therefore a more volatile customer base), which is why I'm defending this change which I believe is still very minor, as it helps new DMs. Older DMs have absolutely zero problem dealing with this and allowing counterspell on spell-like abilities if it is what they prefer.



I wouldn't worry, because at the same time as they are revising, they might (without necessarily introducing tags like the 3e ones) clarify a bit more what is magic and what is not, what is counterspellable and what is not, and still maintain an interest for that spell. But given that it's a controversial one (much too easy (if you are not careful about limiting the perception of the adversaries) to use to shut down PCs or NPCs in particular, which is not always fun), I hope that it will see some revision for sure.

It’s a delicate matter.
I applause to a counterspell that save the party in a crucial moment.
But when it is used methodically to a point where DM don’t use casters or ban the spell, I can’t agree.
Maybe it will be transferred as a more exclusive feature for the abjuration wizards, with a daily usage. Then it could shut down « magical attack » as well.

 

[Lyxen]

It’s a delicate matter.
I applause to a counterspell that save the party in a crucial moment.
But when it is used methodically to a point where DM don’t use casters or ban the spell, I can’t agree.
Maybe it will be transferred as a more exclusive feature for the abjuration wizards, with a daily usage. Then it could shut down « magical attack » as well.

It's easier than this in general, I mentioned using my counterspell with my halfling sorceress to stop our nemesis from running away twice, but the first time I managed to counterspell her obvious teleport, so she ran to a place where I could not follow (damn short halfling legs ) and teleported away. The next time, I made sure that it did not happen (broom of flying plus a few tricks). Note that, during on battle with here, she also counterspelled me, too bad, I should have taken more precautions.

Unless you are playing in an environment where the PCs are magical control towers and know everything that is happening everywhere on the battlefield, there are often ways to avoid casting to be counterspellable. It might take some effort and some tactical thinking, but that is part of the fun.

Note that I even applied a trick in a LARP, our wizard had a powerful fear spell, but the monsters had a sorcerer with an obvious counterspell (we use spell components, the component for counterspelling is a feather, that casters usually suspend from their staves for easy access). So I cast a very small spell at the sorcerer to force him to counterspell, which he did, and then our Wizard hit them. There are countless ways to manage this in D&D with imagination.

 

[Maxperson]

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 !

ROFL Now you're going to try and say that Innate Spellcasting somehow makes a difference to this discussion? You can counterspell the innate spells, so it applies equally. Give me a freaking break. You'll go to any lengths to try and avoid being wrong.

To prove this, I have taken the first few of your list and checked, Baphomet has no damaging spell. Neither does Demogorgon.

Irrelevant. Power is the key, not damage. They are taking the strongest spells and turning them into actions. All of them have offensive spells.

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.

Whereas I'm going by what the designer said. You're just trying to extrapolate in a way that makes him a liar. Which of us is most likely correct?

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 ?

Barlgura has two offensive spells and the Mind Flayer has one.