D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[J.Quondam]

It looks like damage dealing is from the new powers. Spells that could be used against the party include stuff like Banishment, Hold Person.
Some have item spells.

Thanks for checking. I appreciate the info!

 

[Sacrosanct]

This would be a excellent way of doing it. What is it from?

It's from a book I'm writing, Twilight Fables. A monster/lore book on historical European fey, as opposed to how they have been depicted in modern RPGs or literature or media.

 

[TheSword]

My issue is with the ease of counter spelling, not its existence (although I'd be fine if it didn't exist). There's no roll the vast majority of the time; it just happens, and one of your very few turns of action is wasted. As has been mentioned above, make it always take an opposed roll, or have there be some compensation for having your turn be cancelled, and it would be fine.

Isn’t the risk in this case wasting a higher level spell slot to dispel a magic missile.

When a NPC wizard casts a spell in combat they’re usually going to use top end slots and my NPCs tend to have higher levels than my PCs by at least 2. So either your PC is using his max spell slots or taking a risk on a roll.

If they don’t use their top slots then the PC could be wasting their spell slot to counterspell a firebolt. Hardly a good use of resources.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Isn’t the risk in this case wasting a higher level spell slot to dispel a magic missile.

When a NPC wizard casts a spell in combat they’re usually going to use top end slots and my NPCs tend to have higher levels than my PCs by at least 2. So either your PC is using his max spell slots or taking a risk on a roll.

If they don’t use their top slots then the PC could be wasting their spell slot to counterspell a firebolt. Hardly a good use of resources.

It's a matter of the social contract. Players (my players anyway) tend to take it poorly when they are "gotcha'd" by a wasted spell slot, so in practice they mostly get away with it. Still irritates the hell out of me sometimes.

 

[Blue]

Personally I have had a quick look at the statblocks in Wild Beyond... and I would rule the actions as spells for Mage Slayer, Oath of the Ancients and most of them I would not rule as higher than level 3 for counterspell or Globe of Invulnerability. For sanity sake I might rule as level 3 or lower in all cases.
On further consideration I think that I will go that they are spells as for as Mage Slayer and oath of the Ancients and level 3 as for Globe of Invulnerability but they are subtle spells as far as Counterspell goes. I think that preserves my sanity, nerfs counter spell slightly and is a reasonable compromise.

Thank you for so sussinctly stating the problem. We've moved from clearly written out to now requires rulings. I picked up Witchlight for my daughter for her first hardcover adventure to run. Will she feel comfortable making rulings? While every table make the same rulings? Will AL judges who are supposed to follow RAW make rulings?

And for thos that don't make the same ruling as you, then we have stealth nerfs to feats like Mage Slayer, class abilities like Oath of Ancient's Aura, spells like Globe of Invulnerability, and the other places, like the Rakasha's Limited Magic Invulnerability.

You have hit the nail on the head, they have taken away what was crystal clear and now it becomes a judgement call. That is inherently worse, and the problem we are talking about.

So please, in any discussions, remember the starting position was "clearly spelled out, no rulings needed because exact clarity was provided" and anything less than that is a problem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm fine with this if Counterspell is basically eliminated in 5.5E, or made into something with a much more narrow and specific application, but if the real end result is "PCs can always have their spells counterspelled, increasing numbers of NPCs/monsters cannot", then that's not good or interesting design - indeed, I'd go as far as to say that's the opposite of good design. Entirely removing Counterspell would be better than creating a situation where it's essentially heavily asymmetric.

So please, in any discussions, remember the starting position was "clearly spelled out, no rulings needed because exact clarity was provided" and anything less than that is a problem.

I expect 5.5E will rectify this, but we have definitely entered the dread/beloved "endgame" of the current edition, something I suggested had happened with Tashas, basically, because we're now getting into the area where basic principles of the current edition's design are breaking down.

(Which really means "5.5E" will be more of a highly-compatible 6E as countless people have predicted.)

 

[TheSword]

Thank you for so sussinctly stating the problem. We've moved from clearly written out to now requires rulings. I picked up Witchlight for my daughter for her first hardcover adventure to run. Will she feel comfortable making rulings? While every table make the same rulings? Will AL judges who are supposed to follow RAW make rulings?

And for thos that don't make the same ruling as you, then we have stealth nerfs to feats like Mage Slayer, class abilities like Oath of Ancient's Aura, spells like Globe of Invulnerability, and the other places, like the Rakasha's Limited Magic Invulnerability.

You have hit the nail on the head, they have taken away what was crystal clear and now it becomes a judgement call. That is inherently worse, and the problem we are talking about.

So please, in any discussions, remember the starting position was "clearly spelled out, no rulings needed because exact clarity was provided" and anything less than that is a problem.

Maybe give your daughter a break on a first DM and not break out the counterspells, and let her enjoy the experience of lobbing some fireballs at your PC? Does it really matter if you can’t counterspell.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Thank you for so sussinctly stating the problem. We've moved from clearly written out to now requires rulings. I picked up Witchlight for my daughter for her first hardcover adventure to run. Will she feel comfortable making rulings? While every table make the same rulings? Will AL judges who are supposed to follow RAW make rulings?

And for thos that don't make the same ruling as you, then we have stealth nerfs to feats like Mage Slayer, class abilities like Oath of Ancient's Aura, spells like Globe of Invulnerability, and the other places, like the Rakasha's Limited Magic Invulnerability.

You have hit the nail on the head, they have taken away what was crystal clear and now it becomes a judgement call. That is inherently worse, and the problem we are talking about.

So please, in any discussions, remember the starting position was "clearly spelled out, no rulings needed because exact clarity was provided" and anything less than that is a problem.

You are welcome, I guess. I will confess to being somewhat surprised that WoTC allowed such an ambiguity since @Sacrosanct in his example statblock, gives a way (by explicitly assigning a spell level to such powers) that clearly prevents most of the problems and all that is needed in addition would be guidance on the applicability of Counterspell to the powers.

 

[Blue]

I did no such thing, and I find little to respect in this sort of obnoxious attempt at a gotcha reversal.
I assumed no default. That is literally my point. There isn't one. It's up to the DM.

Yes, it is. In 5e only the core books are, well, core. Everything else is optional.

Excuse me, I took this as your assumed default:

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.

If that isn't your assumed default, then ... hmmm. Okay, reevaluating while reading it as not your assumed stance, I think then you are saying the rules don't cover it at all and rulings must be made. Is that more correct? If so, my apologies - I thought you were saying that sicne the rules don't cover it, spells were automatically known.

Interesting, you are saying the whole book is optional. Okay, I can understand that stance. But we at least have guidance on what the designers think from it.

 

[Blue]

Maybe give your daughter a break on a first DM and not break out the counterspells, and let her enjoy the experience of lobbing some fireballs at your PC? Does it really matter if you can’t counterspell.

She's not running for me, but there's a lot of things it affects outside counterspell. That have been listed again and again in this thread.

And I have to say, if the solution is "well, don't use that part of the game" then we all admit there's a problem, you just don't want to face it.