D&D 5E Counterspell what do people think?

[Maxperson]

It seems to me that spells require components like somatic or verbal. If you are using your math or free hand to cast a different spell then it seems reasonable to rule you can’t use that same mouth or free hand to cast counterspell.

So IMO no house rule is needed. Just an abdjuction of the rules.

Components are pulled out when you cast the spell. They are also often not cast at the same time. I could see a concentration check being needed in order to counter a counter headed at one of your spells, though. You're sort of interrupting yourself to counter the counter.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you also rule that fighters can't use their sword to make an opportunity attack if they have used it to attack on the previous round?

That isn't what he's saying. He's talking about the counter-counter-counter thing. If you are casting a spell and I counter it, and then you try to counter my counter, you are interrupting your own spell to do it. Say you're casting fireball. Well, you're holding the material component so one hand is no longer free, and your other hand is engaged in the somatic aspect of fireball. Stopping the fireball somatic in the middle in order to engage the counterspell somatic might require a concentration check or just not be allowed. That's what I think [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] is getting at.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's the problem in a nutshell. There is no spell, not one, that should be so important that the group feels it has to have it.

Why not?

I point you to Cure Wounds.

They don't have +2 strength. They're freaking wizards. People don't put strength up that high on wizards. There are more important stats that get the higher stat numbers.

They get a bonus of +2 to strength. So even if you dump stat strength you will be doing one more point of damage because the minimum is 10 rather than 8. But with standard point buy it's quite easy to put Str up to 14 on a dwarf wizard without sacrificing other key stats. You don't need Dex over 14 because Medium Armor. Why do you do it? To give you an additional tactical option.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not?

I point you to Cure Wounds.

I point you to 5e. Cure spells are no longer required.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That isn't what he's saying. He's talking about the counter-counter-counter thing. If you are casting a spell and I counter it, and then you try to counter my counter, you are interrupting your own spell to do it. Say you're casting fireball. Well, you're holding the material component so one hand is no longer free, and your other hand is engaged in the somatic aspect of fireball. Stopping the fireball somatic in the middle in order to engage the counterspell somatic might require a concentration check or just not be allowed. That's what I think @FrogReaver is getting at.

Ah, that makes more sense, but it's still a house rule. Sage advice specifically ruled that you can do it and there is nothing in the rules to say you can't perform two lots of sematic components at the same time. Even if you did, only one hand is required, and most wizards come equipped with two.

I generally fluff it as reinforcing a faltering spell myself.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I point you to 5e. Cure spells are no longer required.

So what?

The idea that "no spell should be essential" has never been a feature of D&D design philosophy. It's just something you invented.

My 1st edition cleric never left home without 5 Cure Light Wounds memorised.

 

[Maxperson]

So what?

The idea that "no spell should be essential" has never been a feature of D&D design philosophy. It's just something you invented.

Um, this is 5e we are discussing, not other editions that had OTHER design philosophies. They have been trying to get away from feat and spell taxes, and it's not something I've been inventing. People have been talking about it since 3e.

My 1st edition cleric never left home without 5 Cure Light Wounds memorised.

Neither he nor your 1e wizard had counterspell, either. Try to stick with the edition we are discussing. It's more helpful and will actually be relevant.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Um, this is 5e we are discussing, not other editions that had OTHER design philosophies. They have been trying to get away from feat and spell taxes, and it's not something I've been inventing. People have been talking about it since 3e.



Neither he nor your 1e wizard had counterspell, either. Try to stick with the edition we are discussing. It's more helpful and will actually be relevant.

To qualify as D&D editions need to have something in common with previous editions. There is no "no spell is essential" rule in 5e, just as there wasn't in any other edition of D&D. Some spells are better than others and there is nothing wrong with that.

I hate this "everything has to be balanced" nonsense. You see it in MMOs and all you are left with is a grey sameness in which your choices have no meaning.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, that makes more sense, but it's still a house rule. Sage advice specifically ruled that you can do it and there is nothing in the rules to say you can't perform two lots of sematic components at the same time.

I disagree that it has to be a house rule. More of a ruling than a house rule, since both spells say you need to have a hand free to engage the somatic component, but it's clearly impossible to do two different somatic components simultaneously, so one hand is no longer free for the fireball while the fireball is being cast. The DM is free to engage a ruling that without the free hand for fireball, the fireball fails or needs a concentration check due to you reacting and casting counterspell. The DM could also rule that there's no need for either one. No matter which way it's ruled, though, the ruling is solidly based on a game rule and is not going to be a house rule.

Even if you did, only one hand is required, and most wizards come equipped with two.

True, but as I mentioned, the other hand is not in fact free. It is holding the bat guano and sulfer, and so it's incapable of being used for the somatic component.

I generally fluff it as reinforcing a faltering spell myself.

That's one way to do it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

True, but as I mentioned, the other hand is not in fact free. It is holding the bat guano and sulfer, and so it's incapable of being used for the somatic component.

You don't normally require two free hands if a spell has S and M components. You can preform S components with the hand holding M components.

But it wouldn't be unreasonable to house rule the other way.