D&D 5E Counterspell what do people think?

[Paul Farquhar]

Cost of Counterspell: reaction + a spell slot of at least 3rd level

Benefit of Counterspell: action(usually) + whatever spell is being cast

I don't see an evidence that one always out-ways the other. Without some evidence for that I see no reason to even think about adjusting the balance in either direction.

If, in a fight between equal numbers of spellcasters, the spellcasters pretty much cancel each other out, leaving it up to the non-casters in each group to decide the outcome, then I would see that as the game working pretty much as it should.

 

[Maxperson]

If, in a fight between equal numbers of spellcasters, the spellcasters pretty much cancel each other out, leaving it up to the non-casters in each group to decide the outcome, then I would see that as the game working pretty much as it should.

You don't see PC negation as a problem? I do. I don't think a player should be frustrated at not being able to act for X rounds, because an NPC or NPCs are shutting him down. It's less of an issue on the DM side since I have unlimited creatures and am generally playing multiple creatures.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

What if it was not a spell but an action available to spellcasters (or at least some) that requires that you have prepared the same spell that is being cast? So it's the idea that you are basically canceling the spell by using the same spell in opposition.

 

[Sadras]

You don't see PC negation as a problem? I do. I don't think a player should be frustrated at not being able to act for X rounds, because an NPC or NPCs are shutting him down. It's less of an issue on the DM side since I have unlimited creatures and am generally playing multiple creatures.

Max, at the outset, I have only skimmed the thread - do you have a proposal how to correct this issue. The word is in italics, because I have as yet not made up my mind if I consider this an issue or not.

Very much on the fence for now, but I did like the earlier idea of psychic/arcana feedback, seemed cute.

 

[Garthanos]

You don't see PC negation as a problem? I do. I don't think a player should be frustrated at not being able to act for X rounds, because an NPC or NPCs are shutting him down. It's less of an issue on the DM side since I have unlimited creatures and am generally playing multiple creatures.

I see loss of fun in the current format actions that go poof (and yes you tagged it potential PC negation is definitely on the list). Although mayhaps not doing too many NPC counterspells keeps it under control.

 

[Maxperson]

What if it was not a spell but an action available to spellcasters (or at least some) that requires that you have prepared the same spell that is being cast? So it's the idea that you are basically canceling the spell by using the same spell in opposition.

I think needing the exact spell is too restrictive. 3e did that and I never once saw counterspell being used. If it were tied to school, I could see it being used. Maybe make it a class feature that allows a reaction to stop a spell of the same level and school. You'd need to have a spell of that school and level prepared, and you'd have to allow at least a limited arcana check to determine spell level as a part of the reaction, which should be fine since it's not a full spellcrafting.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, at the outset, I have only skimmed the thread - do you have a proposal how to correct this issue. The word is in italics, because I have as yet not made up my mind if I consider this an issue or not.

Very much on the fence for now, but I did like the earlier idea of psychic/arcana feedback, seemed cute.

I've proposed a few ideas so far. I think I'm up to three now, but one of them was a tweak to the first one, so I'm not sure if that one counts.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I quite like counterspell...particularly when used with all the appropriate limitations, like not always being sure which spell the enemy is casting and strictly following the 60 foot range coupled with sight/hearing requirements. It becomes kind of a cool guessing game with fake-outs, resource-wars, etc. It IS pretty situational though. My guilty confession is that I find Dispel Magic to be more generally useful...since it can be used more frequently (depending on DM) after the effects have been identified; and can be used on long-standing magic effects that the caster wasn't around to witness being cast.

I agree. I think part of the problem with counterspelling is the player's knowledge of what spell is being cast. Another thread once discussed how you are supposed to use your reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast, but then you can't counterspell because you used your reaction. The thread continued with an ally using their reaction to identify the spell so you could counter it.

Personally, I think the timing is two quick for reactions to play off each other.

In our group, we always have one caster with counterspell and one with dispel magic.

 

[Maxperson]

I see loss of fun in the current format actions that go poof (and yes you tagged it potential PC negation is definitely on the list). Although mayhaps not doing too many NPC counterspells keeps it under control.

The spell puts me in a bit of a bind. I play NPCs to their intelligence and ability, so if there is an NPC wizard out there that can have the spell, it wouldn't make sense in most situations for him not to take it, or not to use it once taken.

 

[Garthanos]

The spell puts me in a bit of a bind. I play NPCs to their intelligence and ability, so if there is an NPC wizard out there that can have the spell, it wouldn't make sense in most situations for him not to take it, or not to use it once taken.

Well availability of spells hence the "can" part is a DM choice for the world too... a given ritual for instance might only be known by some weird hermit somewhere. Spells were intended to be like magic items back in the day and so their availability wasn't just prolific. I am inclined to let players have more slack on the idea of "rarity" or availability. One might even say a particular country is heavy on Duelist mages and they developed the spell but its not propagated globally due to secrecy rules and nasty enforcer squads. Or its a spell left over from an age where there were tons of mages and now with so few around its no longer popular.