D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[jgsugden]

I imagine they will discuss whether to errata these abilities with the word "spell" or not.

I do not like the idea that some spells are now counterspell proof due to a cosmetic change.

 

[Mort]

IMO counterspell already has enough conditions to it working. Removing an even larger amount of situations where it could be effective is overkill.

Plus, as stated above, the new presentation is to make monster stat blocks easier, this seems to be an unintended effect.

 

[Mort]

Couterspell is "too powerful" because people forget that it has to be cast "blind" - you don't have time to figure out what you are countering.

Correct, though I have yet to see a DM actually run it this way!

 

[Erdric Dragin]

Why the hell are the monsters not using magic spells anymore? This looks like they're taking monsters back to the 4e format, which was terrible.

I still stand by the 3e system of "the PCs and enemies" utilizing the same system and rules. That was far more streamlined than anything else I've seen after 3e.

5e is stupid easy enough. How is this "easier"? What was so wrong with them having spell slots like an actual caster? And a DM can arrange the spells as they see fit?

 

[Charlaquin]

Eh, in my game these abilities will count as spells and be susceptible to counterspell, dispel magic, and the like. Other DMs who find those abilities to be too strong, can rule otherwise if they wish. No big deal either way IMO.

 

[Mort]

Why the hell are the monsters not using magic spells anymore? This looks like they're taking monsters back to the 4e format, which was terrible.

I still stand by the 3e system of "the PCs and enemies" utilizing the same system and rules. That was far more streamlined than anything else I've seen after 3e.

5e is stupid easy enough. How is this "easier"? What was so wrong with them having spell slots like an actual caster? And a DM can arrange the spells as they see fit?

While "monsters use the same format as PCs" is fine from the player side, It gets unwieldly from the DM side FAST as levels increase. And the problem is monster's are not PCs - they are designed for a completely different purpose (for the DM to use as opposition) and anything that helps the DM toward that purpose is a big plus IMO.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Yeah I noticed that the other day. I would note, however, that at least for what we've seen the trend is mostly to pick one sort of mid-level spell attack that probably wouldn't be worth counterspelling anyway and make that a spell-like ability (the offbrand fireball of the hag in Witchlight notwithstanding).

Still, I wish they'd throw a "counts as a spell" clause on there. Not just for counterspellers but for all those other folks who have an ability that applies to spells and spells only, like say and Oath of Ancients Paladin. It seems like they're just setting DMs up to replace the time they would have spent looking up a spell with time they end up arguing with frustrated players.

 

[Leatherhead]

Counterspell only feels powerful because of the shock factor. Mechanically speaking it's a weaker Stun.


However, yes, they really need to add "Magic" and "Spell" tags to powers and abilities of monsters going forward.

 

[Azzy]

Eh, in my game these abilities will count as spells and be susceptible to counterspell, dispel magic, and the like. Other DMs who find those abilities to be too strong, can rule otherwise if they wish. No big deal either way IMO.

I will do the same.

 

[Ancalagon]

Correct, though I have yet to see a DM actually run it this way!

I do - well my players don't use counter spells, but I do