D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[doctorbadwolf]

That's what I said. It was a justification.

Except the Predator thing doesn't allow us to see the creature as if it were visible. It allows us to see the creature as if it were a nearly invisible blob, which is different. Rather than just coming up with an appropriate ruling, he gave us a half-assed excuse that doesn't fit with what the spells say.

Except he did give the appropriate reading of the rules as written. The RAW is what it is, even if it doesn’t make sense to everyone.

He then, separately from that, showed a way to imagine the interaction within the fiction. It doesn’t matter whether you like or dislike his example, it isn’t a justification or a ruling, it’s just as example of a way to imagine the scene in question.

 

[Mort]

RIght, as usual, your position is totally unsupported by actual facts, since, you use "many" for.... "one", being counterspell. I'll be generous and add Mage Slayer so that you reach a grand total of 2... For me, that's far from "many".

Actually I'd say the biggest impact is likely on the 7+ level Ancients Paladin (and his group) as their signature ability (the aura providing resistance to all SPELL damage) could be heavily impacted here.

Now how major or minor that is? Depends on if your group likes paladins and this subclass (I've seen 1 in play so far).

 

[Maxperson]

You mistake me, I"m not claiming that my way is 10)% correct, what I'm saying is that YOUR way is 100% incorrect if you assume that counterspelling is only useful and/or usable on damaging spell. I've even given you actual examples of play.

That isn't what I said, though. He said most powerful spells will be actions, not just damaging ones. So all the ones you'd want to Counterspell will be unable to be Counterspelled by HIS words.

And people have pointed out that you have misunderstood him.

Riiiiiight, because when he said that the most powerful spells will now be actions, he really meant something else entirely. My bad apparently. All of those who can mind read or predict the future with tea leaves understand better.

Take any published adventure and let me know how spellcasters encounters are in the book, in percentage. That should give you a benchmark.

There are a lot. At least in the few that I've seen. I don't generally use published adventures, because they go for too many levels. I like smaller adventures to fit into my game here and there.

 

[Maxperson]

Except he did give the appropriate reading of the rules as written. The RAW is what it is, even if it doesn’t make sense to everyone.

He did not. His "ruling" ignores the "as if visible" portion of See Invisibility RAW. You do not see the Predator "as if visible." His ruling fails.

Basically, they screwed up on See Invisibility and he's trying to retcon See Invisible to say, "as if a nearly invisible blob" instead of "as if visible."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

He did not. His "ruling" ignores the "as if visible" portion of See Invisibility RAW. You do not see the Predator "as if visible." His ruling fails.

Basically, they screwed up on See Invisibility and he's trying to retcon See Invisible to say, "as if a nearly invisible blob" instead of "as if visible."

The predator comment is not the ruling!

The ruling is that the language of the two spells does not remove the advantage on attacks from being invisible. That is literally it. Everything else is just talking about how to imagine the interaction in the game.

 

[Maxperson]

The predator comment is not the ruling!

It's his justification for his ruling. The Predator thing doesn't work. It fails to explain how See Invisible, which allows you to see someone free and clear with absolutely NOTHING interfering, still allows advantage when attacked by the guy who isn't invisible to you.

See, that person is NOT INVISIBLE to the person casting See Invisibility, therefore by RAW, there is no advantage to attack. RAW only allows a creature who is invisible to get that bonus. Faerie Fire does not remove invisibility, which is why it spells out that the effect is removed. Crawford screwed up his ruling. And then he came up with a crappy justification for his wrong ruling.

The ruling is that the language of the two spells does not remove the advantage on attacks from being invisible. That is literally it. Everything else is just talking about how to imagine the interaction in the game.

Except that the language of See Invisibility does remove it. Only an invisible creature gains advantage. Despite the invisibility spell being active on the creature, that creature is not invisible to the opponent with See Invisible on, therefore by RAW there is no advantage on attacks. See Invisible didn't need to redundantly say, "And the formerly invisible creature doesn't gain advantage on attacks against you."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's his justification for his ruling.

No, it isn’t.

See Invisible didn't need to redundantly say, "And the formerly invisible creature doesn't gain advantage on attacks against you."

Yes, it does. That’s it.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, it does. That’s it.

No, it doesn't. He may be the designer, but he doesn't get to instruct us that we have to ignore RAW and interpret things his way. As written, See Invisibility negates the advantage on attack by causing the invisible creature to no longer be invisible to the caster. No longer invisible means no bonuses granted by being invisible.

 

[Mort]

The predator comment is not the ruling!

The ruling is that the language of the two spells does not remove the advantage on attacks from being invisible. That is literally it. Everything else is just talking about how to imagine the interaction in the game.

Gotta say the spell says "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible"

It's pretty nonsensical to rule the benefit from invisibility still applies!

 

[Maxperson]

Gotta say the spell says "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible"

It's pretty nonsensical to rule the benefit from invisibility still applies!

Yep. You are no longer invisible to that person, so no portion of invisibility applies by RAW.