D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Lyxen]

That is all well and good for the power with out the spell keyword but there are ones with the spell keyword in the statblock.

Honestly, the more I look at it, the more the amount of criticism generated for such a minor change annoys me. The designers not only had the rather good intent of making it easier for DMs to find the attacks and compute the offensive CRs, but they did it in such a way that it modified really little in the statblock and it can be reversed instantly to clearly make it a spell if he so desires.

It also provides more options, in particular to make NPCs and adversaries who are more suited to interacting with the PCs in a meaningful way during combat, to be more surprising and less subject to metagaming. Although I know that it bugs 3e players (and only them, no other edition insisted that NPCs had to be built along PC lines), there is absolutely no reason for it when looking at an infinite fantasy world where everything should be possible.

So who does it really bother ? People who don't trust their DMs ? RAW addicts ? Are there really some people who have not yet understood that although it can be played that way without becoming inferior, 5e is not designed that way, it's a toolbox of guidelines that incites you to create your own rulings ? And that anyone with the barest level knowledge of the rule can create the monsters that he wants and in particular instantly reintegrate the "spell-like powers" into a spell list if it is what they want at their table ? Honestly...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Honestly, the more I look at it, the more the amount of criticism generated for such a minor change annoys me. The designers not only had the rather good intent of making it easier for DMs to find the attacks and compute the offensive CRs, but they did it in such a way that it modified really little in the statblock and it can be reversed instantly to clearly make it a spell if he so desires.

It also provides more options, in particular to make NPCs and adversaries who are more suited to interacting with the PCs in a meaningful way during combat, to be more surprising and less subject to metagaming. Although I know that it bugs 3e players (and only them, no other edition insisted that NPCs had to be built along PC lines), there is absolutely no reason for it when looking at an infinite fantasy world where everything should be possible.

So who does it really bother ? People who don't trust their DMs ? RAW addicts ? Are there really some people who have not yet understood that although it can be played that way without becoming inferior, 5e is not designed that way, it's a toolbox of guidelines that incites you to create your own rulings ? And that anyone with the barest level knowledge of the rule can create the monsters that he wants and in particular instantly reintegrate the "spell-like powers" into a spell list if it is what they want at their table ? Honestly...

I think that this is a mischaracterisation of my and others position. I do not want monsters built on a pc chassis. I had enough of that in 3.x what I would like is some guidance on the question "If a monster has an action that has the spell keyword in the action description, can it be counterspelled, does it trigger the Mage Slayer reaction, should its damage be halved by the the Oath of the Ancients aura, and does it bypass a Glove of Invulnerability?
The fact that there are many threads arguing about this, strongly suggest that this is not clear.

I am increasing of the opinion that if they never used the spell word in the power description then the answer to all these questions would be no and honestly I would be fine with that.

 

[Lyxen]

I think that this is a mischaracterisation of my and others position. I do not want monsters built on a pc chassis.

My apologies, although I was replying to you, I certainly did not mean to sound contrary to you (did I?), I was actually reinforcing what you had mentioned, namely that the changes are really minimal anyway.

The PC chassis (good wording by the way) was just a part of the side rant, I certainly did not think that it was what you advocated.

I had enough of that in 3.x what I would like is some guidance on the question "If a monster has an action that has the spell keyword in the action description, can it be counterspelled, does it trigger the Mage Slayer reaction, should its damage be halved by the the Oath of the Ancients aura, and does it bypass a Glove of Invulnerability?
The fact that there are many threads arguing about this, strongly suggest that this is not clear.

First thing, 5e is built around natural language and does not use "keywords" in general, so if a description mentions that it's a spell, then it's a spell. Moreover, 5e is built around rulings, so if a DM feels that it smells, feels and looks like a spell but is not called a spell, he can do exactly what he wants and no one should have any say about it (unless it has somehow become common practice for players to audit the statblocks of NPCs and monsters ?).

I am increasing of the opinion that if they never used the spell word in the power description then the answer to all these questions would be no and honestly I would be fine with that.

This is 5e, do what you think is right for your table, you are accountable to no-one in your monster design, especially since, like most of the decisions that you make, it is being done for your players' pleasure.

As a side note, the reason for not using the spell word in a description is that it might not be a spell, it might be a magic item or a purely innate power that cannot be replicated. Or which might be,m who knows, it's your campaign anyway.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

@Lyxen Sorry I may have come across a bit strong, and I am aware that I can rule how I like. I do believe that the design team mis stepped a little here.

 

[Lyxen]

@Lyxen Sorry I may have come across a bit strong, and I am aware that I can rule how I like. I do believe that the design team mis stepped a little here.

No worries, I have a tendency to come in a bit strong as well.

As for the design team, honestly, it's only one adventure book and probably the best way to try and test variants before updating the whole monster manual (other than using just their website, but this has a limited and fairly biased audience compared to actually publishing one book).

My perspective is that it's in line with what they have done in other books, small very, controlled changes to judge the reactions and not break something that works. The internet is both a wonderful and terrible place anyway, and I understand them not willing to judge actual reactions just by trying something there.

 

[Ibrandul]

Honestly, the more I look at it, the more the amount of criticism generated for such a minor change annoys me. The designers not only had the rather good intent of making it easier for DMs to find the attacks and compute the offensive CRs, but they did it in such a way that it modified really little in the statblock and it can be reversed instantly to clearly make it a spell if he so desires.

It also provides more options, in particular to make NPCs and adversaries who are more suited to interacting with the PCs in a meaningful way during combat, to be more surprising and less subject to metagaming. Although I know that it bugs 3e players (and only them, no other edition insisted that NPCs had to be built along PC lines), there is absolutely no reason for it when looking at an infinite fantasy world where everything should be possible.

So who does it really bother ? People who don't trust their DMs ? RAW addicts ? Are there really some people who have not yet understood that although it can be played that way without becoming inferior, 5e is not designed that way, it's a toolbox of guidelines that incites you to create your own rulings ? And that anyone with the barest level knowledge of the rule can create the monsters that he wants and in particular instantly reintegrate the "spell-like powers" into a spell list if it is what they want at their table ? Honestly...

I'm not persuaded by the "5e doesn't really have any rules anyway, only guidelines" argument. And there's a wide gulf between "people who don't trust their DMs" and "players who would like to understand how their abilities work without having to ask their DM to clarify them, and would like those abilities to make thematic sense"—as there is between "RAW addicts" and "DMs who would prefer not to add house rules where none were necessary before." A little polite disagreement amongst fans about the value of new rules changes is hardly out of line, and in my opinion the response, both positive and negative, on balance has not been disproportionate to the changes.

Incidentally, I like the statblock changes for the most part, and I agree they're likely to improve the performance of DMs, especially DMs without extensive experience. I don't mind losing upcasting, etc. I just think that "magical actions" that are clearly mechanical expressions of regular ol' NPC magic-user spellcasting should count as spells, and I also think that RAW they clearly don't, and I also also think that RAW do matter, even if of course it can be ignored or discarded.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm not persuaded by the "5e doesn't really have any rules anyway, only guidelines" argument.

Then too bad, it's clearly what the devs intended.

And there's a wide gulf between "people who don't trust their DMs" and "players who would like to understand how their abilities work without having to ask their DM to clarify them, and would like those abilities to make thematic sense"

And in these case, it's not your abilities as a player, it's only NPCs and monsters...

—as there is between "RAW addicts" and "DMs who would prefer not to add house rules where none were necessary before."

And again, although once more it can be played in many equally entertaining ways, 5e is not even about house rules but about rulings that don't necessarily want to make their way into house rule. You can (and probably should) make a local ruling for each individual NPC as to whether a given trait is a spell (or a magic item, or an innate power, or whatever else), you don't need to make it a "house rule" that would apply to all future NPCs. As the devs say this "would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D", why tie all your future games on the local decision made for an NPC, moreover one that you probably don't even need to make, since when using the power, no-one might even have counterspell ready, or a chance to perceive the casting and do anything about it ? Just make a simple ruling if the situation arises, no need to over think it and over design it in advance...

A little polite disagreement amongst fans about the value of new rules changes is hardly out of line, and in my opinion the response, both positive and negative, on balance has not been disproportionate to the changes.

And for me, it is inflated waaaayyyy out of line with people (not you) whining all over the place about their precious counterspells, mage slayer feats, and "right to know when a spell is being cast". Not to mention all the expert designers (despite not having ever designed anything of note) around here (not you again) who claim once more that the people who have designed the most successful TTRPG game ever, and who have finally brought that hobby into a respectable spotlight are basically idiots who have no idea what they are doing and who have, once more, done something idiotic.

Incidentally, I like the statblock changes for the most part, and I agree they're likely to improve the performance of DMs, especially DMs without extensive experience. I don't mind losing upcasting, etc. I just think that "magical actions" that are clearly mechanical expressions of regular ol' NPC magic-user spellcasting should count as spells, and I also think that RAW they clearly don't, and I also also think that RAW do matter, even if of course it can be ignored or discarded.

Of course it can, it can be ignored, discarded, improved, made to suit your table and your game. These are just new possibilities and even if you are using the published module, you are free when you run it to use the abilities any way you like and to allow counterspell and mage slayer if you think your players will enjoy it more.

 

[Maxperson]

And Crawford's statements about design intent always take a back seat to his statements about RAW, right up until new errata is announced—indeed, he almost always insists that there is no discrepancy at all between RAI and RAW. That's understandable: expressing design intent by carefully crafting RAW is his whole job. And he's very reluctant to acknowledge mistakes in the RAW (also understandable, I guess; no one likes admitting to flaws in their work). Remember this one? "Does the Trance trait allow an elf to finish a long rest in 4 hours? The intent is no. The Trance trait does let an elf meditate for 4 hours and then feel the way a human does after sleeping for 8 hours, but that isn't intended to shorten an elf's long rest." Only once the PHB long rest wording was errata'd did his Sage Advice answer change, so that elves now require only 4 hours to complete a long rest, which was the only interpretation of design intent that made a lick of sense to begin with.

Yeah. In the video I posted a few pages ago, he does Sage Advice for Invisibility vs. See Invisibility. He uses the same excuse above for his ruling, "The published text is the only thing that matters when Crawford answers questions about the game rules."

The question was, "Does an invisible person gain advantage on attacks against someone that has cast See Invisibility. He says that unlike Faerie Fire, See Invisibility does not say that it removes advantage, so despite saying you can see the invisible person as if he were visible, it does not remove the advantage. If it was supposed to remove it, it would say so. Then came his justification for both being able to see the invisible creature as if it were visible, yet still allowing it to have advantage. It must be like the Predator! You can see it, but it's this almost invisible, but still visible outline. Which of course complete ignores the "as if they were visible" portion of the See Invisibility spell. Hell, the See Invisibility spell says that ethereal creatures appear ghostly and translucent, which is more like the Predator. No such language appears for invisible creatures.

Hearing his logic for how he comes up with his rulings explained to me very clearly why so many of his rulings are so stupid.

 

[Maxperson]

Honestly, the more I look at it, the more the amount of criticism generated for such a minor change annoys me. The designers not only had the rather good intent of making it easier for DMs to find the attacks and compute the offensive CRs, but they did it in such a way that it modified really little in the statblock and it can be reversed instantly to clearly make it a spell if he so desires.

Minor? You think taking every spell that people would want to use Counterspell on, gets around class abilities designed to help against spells, etc. and making them abilities is minor? It would have been minor if they had only taken out what made sense to be an ability, rather than a spell and made those actions. For example a fire monster hurling fire as an action instead of a fireball spell. Rending several class abilities and Counterspell worthless isn't minor.

I get that their intent seems to be good, but the DM shouldn't have to reverse this change in order to make now worthless class abilities worth something again.

So who does it really bother ? People who don't trust their DMs ? RAW addicts ?

Or..............players who want the class abilities vs. spells to actually mean something.

 

[Maxperson]

And in these case, it's not your abilities as a player, it's only NPCs and monsters...

No it isn't only NPCs and monsters. Many class abilities are now worthless as Crawford said in the video that I posted that the took every good combat spell and made them actions to let monsters punch at the appropriate CR. That means that they just invalidated every class ability that keys off of spells and Counterspell, as those abilities and Counterspell are there for the combat spells.