Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7640675" data-attributes="member: 23751">This is a deflection.  People don't feel that the NEED to have a Vampiric Touch spell in order to avoid TPKs.  Could it be the difference between a win and a TPK, sure.  That would be a corner case, though.  Counterspell is something people feel compelled to learn in order to survive and/or win more efficiently, and it's impact in a fight is generally far greater than something like Vampiric Touch.Nope!  But does seem like you don't want to make an effort to understand where we are coming from.What about them?  Do they do more damage with a staff and their low hit points or something?Again, I'm not an adversarial DM.  I'm not going to pit myself vs. the players to win.  Spellcasters are a part of the game and it would be ridiculous if the players stopped encountering them or encountered them in a greatly reduced number, due to a spell.If I have to drastically change tactics to handle a spell, that spell is borked and needs to be changed.1 in 4 is a lot, and it would be stupid for the players not to take counterspell if meeting casters 25% of the time. It's not as if they can't use the slot for fireball or something if they meet a non-casting group.</blockquote>