Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 8633361" data-attributes="member: 205">I think the problem is more from the opposite direction.&nbsp; I think players who attempts to counterspell a &quot;firebolt&quot; cast by a NPC &quot;spellcaster&quot; only to find out that this NPC's firebolts can't be counterspelled because it's not really &quot;a spell&quot; are going to experience some narrative dissonance.&nbsp; And then that becomes the DM's fault, despite them trying to play in good faith and simply follow the rules as presented.&nbsp; That's not a good presentation of the rules, in my opinion.I'll certainly just house rule anything that looks like &quot;a spell&quot; within the fiction as able to be counterspelled, it's not like it's a difficult house rule.&nbsp; But to me, this change creates a proud nail like barkskin, where the rules are simultaneously easy to interpret and yet cause narrative incoherence when that interpretation is followed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 8633361, member: 205"] I think the problem is more from the opposite direction. I think players who attempts to counterspell a "firebolt" cast by a NPC "spellcaster" only to find out that this NPC's firebolts can't be counterspelled because it's not really "a spell" are going to experience some narrative dissonance. And then that becomes the DM's fault, despite them trying to play in good faith and simply follow the rules as presented. That's not a good presentation of the rules, in my opinion. I'll certainly just house rule anything that looks like "a spell" within the fiction as able to be counterspelled, it's not like it's a difficult house rule. But to me, this change creates a proud nail like [I]barkskin[/I], where the rules are simultaneously easy to interpret and yet cause narrative incoherence when that interpretation is followed. [/QUOTE]

Verification