D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Mort]

Tell me about the "Holy Fire" spell and which rulebook it appears in.

I do believe that requiring a DM to know that an ability is replicating a spell if there's nothing indicating that is the case is terrible design.

Especially considering this change is EXPRESSLY supposed to be for newer DMs, who would be even less likely to know when an ability is replicating a spell!

 

[Lyxen]

Tell me about the "Holy Fire" spell and which rulebook it appears in.

I do believe that requiring a DM to know that an ability is replicating a spell if there's nothing indicating that is the case is terrible design.

I think it's a bit more subtle than this, the SAC of course predates the future monster book. What the SAC says amongst the criteria for determining whether something is magical (but not whether it's a spell) is:

• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?

Although I certainly indicated that the first one could be used to say that a new trait is actually a spell based on its description, I believe that it is stretching that sentence to the very limit. Moreover, that section of the SAC would not make the trait a spell, it would just indicate that it is magical (for example for the purpose of magic resistance).

I have left the second one as well, just to mention that this puts it in the same category as traits which do not mention specifically that it's magical but just that it uses a spell attack.

But remember also that the SAC is fluid and that it might be updated before the monster book comes out. Honestly, I think it's a bit early to tell that a design is terrible based on something that is not even published...

 

[Krachek]

I think that the 50th put them in another mode, more stressed!
since the beginning we got sample, UA, playtest, survey and then official material.
Now because the big date floating at the horizon, they seem urged to make announce, and take short cut. Start running in a dungeon is not a good tactic!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I find the whole distinction between magics to be terrible design as well. This magical effect is background magic that can't be stopped by an anti-magic ray, but that very similar one over there that happens to be the same as a spell can be.

I think if you don't overthink it, it's pretty simple and easy to tell which is which. Dragons breath isn't magical, but a magical ability that replicates it for a creature with no natural access to it is. A unicorn isn't harmed by antimagic, but the Beholder's very magical eyebeams can't be used in the Beholder's anti-magic cone. Beholders are actually kinda weird, and I wouldn't blame a DM for ruling that Beholder eyebeams work just fine in anti-magic or at least in their own cone, but RAW they don't work IIRC. I'm okay with it being weird though, because aberrations shouldn't make sense.

Waving your hand and making holy flame burst into existence in your enemy's face is obviously magical, even if you momentarily forget that sacred flame exists.

 

[Lyxen]

I think if you don't overthink it, it's pretty simple and easy to tell which is which.

I completely agree. Once more, we have been playing twice per week since 5e came out, at all level, and we never had any problem determining what was magical and what was not, and it's going to be exactly the same thing about what are spells and what are not. The only people really having problems are people wanting to argue from a purely ruleslawyery perspective, and it's usually from a theoretical perspective as well, since, when you are actually playing the game, it's easy for a DM to arbitrate.

 

[TheMadRubicante]

Human wizard PC = just a human
Human wizard "Monster" = no longer human, different species

Mmk. Still gonna run it OG 5e. Here's my personal opinion and therefore it's the only thing that's correct and everybody else who doesn't agree is doing it wrong...

WBtW is an "adventure" book rather than a sourcebook. Sourcebooks (e.g. DMG, PHB, VGtM, MToF, and TCoE) contain guidelines, mechanics/RAW, additional content etc., which I see as the foundations to 5e mechanics and rules as opposed. Adventure books contain modules, which may be supplemented by mechanical alternatives that serve to compliment the titled adventure(s), modules. That posits any mechanically related content as categorically "guidelines" IMO, and thus DM discretionary. But that's the beauty of D&D and TTRPGs, right? As long as everyone at the (digital?) table is having fun!

I personally think the "counterspell standoff" is fun as a DM, and there's plenty of fun ways to nerf it without killing it. Like:

1. Forcing a free perception roll to see if the PC can identify the enemy caster begin casting a spell, failing prohibits the PC from casting as they wouldn't have seen the casting commence in time to burn their reaction;
2. Forcing the PC to make a free spell casting ability check, where failing would force a "roll off" between the casters spellcasting ability checks; or
3. Placing other monsters that can counterspell the PC's counterspell... I even created a homebrew spell where a PC caster can spend their reaction to redirect a capped amount of damage from an enemy spell back at other enemies (check out below and feel free to criticize lol).

Y'all get the point. Just my take. Roll on everyone!

 

[ECMO3]

Counterspell can use some nerfing IMO.

With so many great 3rd level wizard spells it would be nice to have a reason to try something else.

 

[CM]

This nerf to counterspell is even more terribly thought-out than counterspell itself.