D&D 5E Goldilocks Poll: Counterspell

[CleverNickName]

This. If there are two casters among the adventuring party, a 5e caster monster much can't do...things. At all. You have to contrive something so he can actually cast some spells.

Moving out of range before casting a spell doesn't sound contrived to me, it sounds like standard combat tactics.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Moving out of range before casting a spell doesn't sound contrived to me, it sounds like standard combat tactics.

I would consider ensuring that every single area a magic-using enemy happens to be in is at least 120' wide and modifying his spell list to get rid of 60'-range spells on it (of which there are many) to be contrived, especially if it means altering a published module.

 

[Stalker0]

Moving out of range before casting a spell doesn't sound contrived to me, it sounds like standard combat tactics.

Which is not possible in many combat scenarios.

Like many things, a lot of these preferences are going to be how you game at the table. For example, I go with a lower number of encounters per day. So in my game, casters "blowing slots" to counterspell is not nearly as penalizing as in a game with the standard 6-8 encounters.

Further, I do a lot of dungeon room type combats, which means that moving outside of 60 feet is often not that tenable.

Lastly, my group tends to like casters, so its common to see 2 casters with counterspell in the group.


So that combination has given me a poor taste on counterspell. A group with different playstyles will likely not have the same issues. That's what having a breathing, thinking DM is for....tailoring the game for both players (and their) enjoyment.

 

[FarBeyondC]

Works great if the module is all happening in football fields and 120'x120' rooms. Otherwise, you'll have to contrive something.

Moving out of sight (around a corner, behind an object, etc.) also doesn't sound contrived, and should be standard combat tactics.

 

[Stalker0]

Moving out of sight (around a corner, behind an object, etc.) also doesn't sound contrived, and should be standard combat tactics.

But likewise, if you can no longer see your target, you can't target them with a spell either.

 

[jgsugden]

Another thing to consider - are you giving your PCs too many rests, or too few encounters between rests?

You can first cast counterspell at 5th level, at which time you could do it twice if you cast no other third level spell - maybe 3 times for some classes. From there, you gain one additional spell of level 3 or above for levels 6 through 11. At that point, you have 8 spell slots (maybe 10) that could be used for counterspelling. It is about at that point where I'd say you start to have enough spells to be counterspelling more freely in most campaigns, but up to that point, counterspelling means having fewer high level spells with which to do something significant in combat for a round.

 

[Oofta]

I don't buy the "ping-pong" theory, in which a counterspell gets counterspelled, which also gets counterspelled by another mage, which then gets counterspelled by yet another mage, etc. That's a lot of third-level spell slots and reactions getting eaten up in a single round of combat. I'm sure it technically could happen, but I've never seen it in practice. I doubt very many people actually have.

At the end of the day, you have to decide that the juice is worth the squeeze. Is your Fireball so vital and important that the entire outcome of combat hinges on it? So much so that your party is willing to spend twice the usual number of spell slots so that you can both cast it and counterspell an incoming counterspell? Probably not.

But if it really is that important, your first thought should be "what if that guy in the sparkly robes over there can cast Counterspell?" Maybe don't lead with your superpowered Win-Button spell at the top of Round 1. Maybe hide first, or drink a potion of invisibility, or move out of counterspell range, cast it with a higher-level spell slot, trick Mr. SparklyRobes into wasting his reaction, etc., beforehand. Maybe do any one of a half-dozen things to ensure that the spell you are about to cast, which is tactically vital to the success of the mission, has the best chance to succeed.

I file this under Not Broken/Don't Fix.

Maybe you never played above 10th level, all I can say is that it was a regular tactic in one of the games I played.

Even if you have 2 party members that can cast it, it's a fairly common tactic to have BG cast spell PC1 counter, BG counter the counter, PC2 counters the BG's counter. When you only have a few rounds of combat, the opponents are going to pull out the big guns pretty quickly or the big guns have a good chance of not being used at all.

YMMV of course, just relaying what I've seen in play and why I dislike the spell as written.

 

[Oofta]

First, because hold monster is much more expensive to cast (an action and a 5th-level slot instead of a reaction and a 3rd-level slot) and harder to stick, and the most powerful monsters have a built-in defense (Legendary Resistance). All of this forces more sparing and tactical use of the spell.

Second, more importantly: If the PCs do manage to stick a hold monster, it's exciting. You have a window in which melee warriors can auto-crit the monster, but that window is short and could close at any moment. So the whole party rushes to take advantage of it. If this results in a sudden unexpected victory, it's a triumphant moment.

There is no such excitement with a counterspell: The monster just... doesn't do anything. The PCs keep on grinding it down for another round. Blah.

And all this goes double when the spells are flipped around and it's the monsters using them on PCs. Hold person on a PC is a moment of terror for the party. Counterspell on a PC is just a round of boredom for that spellcaster.

I think probably my biggest issue with counterspell is that it's boring.

 

[CleverNickName]

Which is not possible in many combat scenarios.

Like many things, a lot of these preferences are going to be how you game at the table. For example, I go with a lower number of encounters per day. So in my game, casters "blowing slots" to counterspell is not nearly as penalizing as in a game with the standard 6-8 encounters.

Further, I do a lot of dungeon room type combats, which means that moving outside of 60 feet is often not that tenable.

Lastly, my group tends to like casters, so its common to see 2 casters with counterspell in the group.


So that combination has given me a poor taste on counterspell. A group with different playstyles will likely not have the same issues. That's what having a breathing, thinking DM is for....tailoring the game for both players (and their) enjoyment.

Moving out of range isn't the only way to avoid your spell getting countered--the enemy needs to (1) be in range, (2) see you casting the spell, and (3) still have its reaction. Remove any one of these three things, using any method you like, and counterspell is off the table. A clever spellcaster would know all this and plan accordingly, not-so-clever ones would make mistakes or forget, but that's all part of the fun I think.

Anyway, I get your point. I'm just saying that sometimes your spells are going to get countered, and I think that's fine. Others will disagree, and I think that's fine too.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Moving out of sight (around a corner, behind an object, etc.) also doesn't sound contrived, and should be standard combat tactics.

Most spells require you to see the target.