D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This is going to mess with a lot more than just counterspells. There are a lot of features that interact with spellcasting, such as the Mage Slayer feat and spells like Globe of Invulnerability, that are now suddenly useless against these NPC "casters". I hope WotC comes to their senses and adds stuff like "level 3 evocation spell" to the description of these abilities.

 

[Scribe]

It's more that Counterspell is fundamentally something that exists in order to cause cool things to not happen. It's all the fun of playing against a "you don't get to play the game" blue deck in magic.

The counter play which counterspell enables, is the cool thing.

Mindlessly tanking spells because there is no choice, no option, is poor gameplay.

Finally, Blue instant/stack based permission is the peak of MTG game design, and the game would be dramatically worse without it.

 

[TwoSix]

Finally, Blue instant/stack based permission is the peak of MTG game design, and the game would be dramatically worse without it.

I haven't played Magic in a long time, but when I did I played primarily blue decks for precisely this reason. Control/negation abilities are fun.

 

[Lyxen]

This looks easy to adjudicate at the table.
It's another strike on WOTC's editing/"thinking things through" skills.

Or maybe, you know, they do what they always did for 5e, making fuzzy rules, and letting DMs sort it out their way at their table exactly like the intent that they stated right upfront with this edition. And letting options open, as a DM can use whatever statblock he likes in whatever way he likes and there will be no-one to reproach him and ruleslawyer him.

Once more, bloggers are over inflating a minuscule detail in an overall interesting sourcebook in order to stir up polemics. I will stay with your first sentence above, which is for me the best one "This looks easy to adjudicate at the table."

 

[orangefruitbat]

Here's what I don't get. Why would you give a monster "Fiery Explosions"? Why wouldn't you just write this:

Fireball [Spell V,S,M] Standard Action. Range 150ft. 8d6 Damage in a 20ft-radius-sphere. Dexterity Save for half damage.

Why can't we both have the npc spellcasters use the same spells that PCs use and have them included in monster stat blocks in a form that makes them easy for the DM to use on the fly?

Exactly. What the game needs is better, more useful stat-blocks to make things easier for DMs, not creating dumbed-down, one-off monster effects that interact poorly with the rule system and with player expectations. Plus, given the proliferation of virtual tools like DnD Beyond and VTTs, we can provide ways to quick-link the stat block to the full spell description when needed.

 

[TwoSix]

Or maybe, you know, they do what they always did for 5e, making fuzzy rules, and letting DMs sort it out their way at their table exactly like the intent that they stated right upfront with this edition. And letting options open, as a DM can use whatever statblock he likes in whatever way he likes and there will be no-one to reproach him and ruleslawyer him.

Yea, but this isn't really just a problem of the rules being fuzzy. It's more of the barkskin problem, where the most obvious reading of the rule leads to narratively incoherent outcomes (like barkskin being less effective if you have cover). Having rules that require either some tortured justifications or the DM having to make house rules to make the effect make narrative sense isn't a good thing.

 

[orangefruitbat]

I haven't played Magic in a long time, but when I did I played primarily blue decks for precisely this reason. Control/negation abilities are fun.

I think the problem with Counterspell is that how it is implemented is not fun, and not the idea of a negation spell in general. The spell would be much better if every counter spell was some sort of opposed roll rather than an automatic negation below a certain level.

 

[Blue]

Only if the DM rules that way and uses the optional rule from Xanathar’s. It’s just as RAW to allow PCs to know what the spell is, or to allow a “knowledge” check without any action cost (bc it’s silly to require any action be taken to determine if you recognize something or not), etc.

The only rule that speaks on it is a supplemental optional rule.

Skill checks normally take actions. So "default" rules are worst then the optional rules. Lack of rules either to auto-identify or not is not a "default rule" in the direction you want to make your point. Taking the stance that the rules don't say you need to make a check means you know it is just as invalid as saying the rules don't say you can identify so you can't. Neither is supported by the rules.

 

[Blue]

Counterspell wasn't nerfed it hasn't receive an errata to modify it. It's just a small fraction of monsters newly created that have some actions over and beyond their Spellcasting feature that will not be subject to Counterspell now being written has an action.

It's nothing new there already was monsters framed this way. For exemple the Flameskull's Fire Ray and many other spell attacks action found in either monsters or NPC statblock.

It's also the new format for the big monster book coming out in January. Which is reprinting and replacing monsters in a large selection of books except the MM.

And taking all offensive casting for all monsters that do that and making it un-counterspell-able is not a nerf? Sorry, you are just factually wrong on that. It's like if all monsters now had fire resistance and your stance was "firebolt wasn't nerfed because they didn't errata it".

In addition, it means that I can have like casters on a field against the PCs, and some of the casters (from the MM) will have their offensive magic able to be counterspelled, and other casters next to them will not. So it breaks immersion and in-world logic.

 

[Blue]

I hope WotC comes to their senses and adds stuff like "level 3 evocation spell" to the description of these abilities.

With availability in January, my guess is this has already been sent to the printers.