• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Counterspell what do people think?

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Counter Spell goes way way back in Chainmail it was one of several magic abilities the casters simply had. Alongside either a Fireball, or Lightning bolt, seeing in the Dark and becoming invisible
till they attacked.

The above were basically at-wills, yeh. Though in a mass battle each turn might be closer to an encounter but since the adversary also only did one thing its closer feeling to an at-will.

I am feeling nostalgic for something I didnt play over it so thereis that. I have read some criticisms over how counterspell was just too much a poof... no effect to me that it is a pure defense maneurver kind of limits it too. (What if there was backlash on the caster when you countered their spell)

https://dmdavid.com/tag/how-new-changes-created-the-4-most-annoying-spells-in-dungeons-dragons/

I kind of feel like its unlikely to come up so often as to really be a problem? But since it doesnt advance the battle towards its conclusion very much is it one people will even use?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I am now picturing a counterspell which harms the enemy if it succeeds by whiplash like effect and may harm the one casting counterspell if it fails.
 

Maxperson

Orcus on an on Day
I don't care for it. I personally dislike spells that people feel that they have to have, as that limits creativity and diversity in spells. When it comes to encounters, any caster than can have it generally does have it, on both sides. Combat becomes counter-counter-counter until one side is out and then spells start happening. And if only one side has it, the other side is screwed if it has spellcasters.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I don't care for it. I personally dislike spells that people feel that they have to have, as that limits creativity and diversity in spells. When it comes to encounters, any caster than can have it generally does have it, on both sides. Combat becomes counter-counter-counter until one side is out and then spells start happening. And if only one side has it, the other side is screwed if it has spellcasters.
So you have seen it as becoming "must have" hmmm.
 

Maxperson

Orcus on an on Day
So you have seen it as becoming "must have" hmmm.
It automatically shuts down spells of 3rd level or lower being used against you, and gives you a roll against the rest. Why would you not pick it and save your side damage, control, death, etc? You can even put it in a higher slot to auto shut down even higher spell levels.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It automatically shuts down spells of 3rd level or lower being used against you, and gives you a roll against the rest. Why would you not pick it and save your side damage, control, death, etc? You can even put it in a higher slot to auto shut down even higher spell levels.
How many adversaries are typically spell casters? I can actually see it way more valuable in say my game than someone else's as I think people are the most complex and interesting monsters of all. But I have definitely seen many a game where it never came up.
 

Maxperson

Orcus on an on Day
How many adversaries are typically spell casters? I can actually see it way more valuable in say my game than someone else's as I think people are the most complex and interesting monsters of all. But I have definitely seen many a game where it never came up.
It doesn't matter how many are spellcasters, since it just takes up one spell sitting in your potentially usable spells. If no spellcasters are encountered, you use those 3rd level slots on another spell. It's not like you have to commit to it taking up an actual spell like it would have in a prior edition when you chose all spells in advance.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It doesn't matter how many are spellcasters, since it just takes up one spell sitting in your potentially usable spells. If no spellcasters are encountered, you use those 3rd level slots on another spell. It's not like you have to commit to it taking up an actual spell like it would have in a prior edition when you chose all spells in advance.
Nods I can see that... and even at 5th level for the wizard its one of potentially many. Put it alongside fireball or lightning bolt.
 

UnknownDyson

Explorer
I don't care for it. I personally dislike spells that people feel that they have to have, as that limits creativity and diversity in spells. When it comes to encounters, any caster than can have it generally does have it, on both sides. Combat becomes counter-counter-counter until one side is out and then spells start happening. And if only one side has it, the other side is screwed if it has spellcasters.
I think that adds to the flavor of spell duels personally. I also like the fact that it is only available to arcane spellcasters. I agree that it could be made more interesting than just a spell shutdown, but in a magical world, counter spell and dispel magic are necessities. The goal would be to have it look like a cinematic spell battle like harry potter or some other magic heavy setting, unfortunately the players have to rely on the DM for that.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I think that adds to the flavor of spell duels personally. I also like the fact that it is only available to arcane spellcasters. I agree that it could be made more interesting than just a spell shutdown, but in a magical world, counter spell and dispel magic are necessities. The goal would be to have it look like a cinematic spell battle like harry potter or some other magic heavy setting, unfortunately the players have to rely on the DM for that.
How about my idea... make it a bit more iffy against lower level spells and give whiplash effects even a small amount of damage d4+spell level? of a type related to the spell countered. (if any) or a type opposite.

And conversely when I fail to counter it i might take a small amount of damage of the opposite type maybe?

I brought up the original Chainmail to show both heritage and that the flavor of caster vs caster is ummm solid in foundation.
 
Last edited:

UnknownDyson

Explorer
How about my idea... make it a bit more iffy against lower level spells and give whiplash effects even a small amount of damage d4+spell level? of a type related to the spell countered. (if any) or a type opposite.

And conversely when I fail to counter it i might take a small amount of damage of the opposite type maybe?
I actually like that much better as a subclass feature for a sorcerer or wizard than I do for the whole game.
 

UnknownDyson

Explorer
I was thinking it sort of gave flavor of magic being dangerous not just a level of commitment to the counterspell too...
I don't think you should mechanically inhibit an arcane spellcasters ability to deal with magic. Wizards - they learn and prepare spells at great monetary and time costs. Sorcerers - they have a very limited number of spells known. Warlocks - They don't have many spell slots. One thing that these classes have going for them is that they can deal with magic in ways that the divine casters can't. Besides, counterspell already has weaknesses built in. It only works if the caster can see a target within 60 feet of them (unless you are a sorcerer with the distant metamagic), and requires a reaction. The DC for the upcast is 10 + the spell's level going off your spellcasting stat, which means you don't get to apply your proficiency bonus unless you are an abjurer.

I don't think making counterspell unreliable against lower level spells is the way to go. I personally like the d4 whiplash idea, but I don't know that people would embrace it if it wasn't tied to a subclass.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I don't think you should mechanically inhibit an arcane spellcasters ability to deal with magic.
Aside from introducing possible but even potentially rarish failure on lower level ones I wasnt thinking of inhibiting just flavoring it up a bit adding pop when it succeeds and opposite small ouch when it doesnt (ie having it potentially fail against a lower slot spell was just more of that pop)

Wizards - they learn and prepare spells at great monetary and time costs. Sorcerers - they have a very limited number of spells known. Warlocks - They don't have many spell slots. One thing that these classes have going for them is that they can deal with magic in ways that the divine casters can't. Besides, counterspell already has weaknesses built in. It only works if the caster can see a target within 60 feet of them (unless you are a sorcerer with the distant metamagic), and requires a reaction. The DC for the upcast is 10 + the spell's level going off your spellcasting stat, which means you don't get to apply your proficiency bonus unless you are an abjurer.

I don't think making counterspell unreliable against lower level spells is the way to go. I personally like the d4 whiplash idea, but I don't know that people would embrace it if it wasn't tied to a subclass.

It occured to me that modern wizard duel inspiration does draw heavily on Harry Potter.

I am less certain counterspell actually feels like it.
And perhaps that could be one distinction while there is a lot of spell parrying ? spell blocking? in Harry Potter One might picture that as affecting only self or some adjacent character.Though perhaps there could be some cantrip type active spell block? I will say the counterspell as it stands can help allies making it more D&D.

Before Harry Potter there was Doctor Strange which has also made it to the movie screen(not so impressively as the latest perhaps). Doctor Strange also features spell shields personal and team friendly spheres to protect allies or against lots and lots of opponents.
 

77IM

Explorer
My favorite fix for counterspell is: if you successfully counter someone, they get back the spell slot (or daily ability use) they spent on that spell. So you're just delaying their spell, which may be tactically super useful, but is by no means a "must-have" ability.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
My favorite fix for counterspell is: if you successfully counter someone, they get back the spell slot (or daily ability use) they spent on that spell. So you're just delaying their spell, which may be tactically super useful, but is by no means a "must-have" ability.
Trading a spell slot to delay them? and them not losing a spell slot, that is edging passed not even something i would want.

Does it progress the fight might be a measure of worth.
 
Last edited:

Nebulous

Explorer
i hate the spell. I hate using it on the PCs and cancelling their action, slot and plan without even a roll, and I hate it being used against me as a DM. If there was an opposed Arcana check so that it was a contest of willpower, that would help. I'll probably remove it from my next campaign and relegate to a rare magic item with limited charges or something.
 

Krachek

Explorer
If you play it by the rules it work fine and is challenging to use.
your reaction is made blindly triggered by a casting.
You don’t know the spell nor the level. Total wild guess.
of course if your are counterspelled you can easily guess the spell, by what level he use?
the is not so easy to manage you feel like a poker game.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Depending on the group this can be one of the most annoying aspects of the game. We had a group that had 3 PCs that could counterspell ... so people would counter the spell with that counter being countered with the counter of the counter being countered ... ad nauseum.

The only way an enemy spellcaster could get anything off was to have a way to cast a spell without being seen. Yes it drained resources, but at higher levels enemy spellcasters were totally nerfed.
 

Advertisement

Top