D&D 5E Goldilocks Poll: Counterspell

[Dausuul]

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?

I think there is a sunk cost fallacy going on here (or a reversed sunk cost fallacy?). Consider from the point of view of the original caster: You expend a 3rd-level slot to cast a fireball. It gets countered. Now you have a choice:

1) Do nothing. You are down one 3rd-level slot.
2) Counter the counterspell. You are down two 3rd-level spell slots, and you get a fireball.

You will be down one 3rd-level slot either way. That is a sunk cost and irrelevant. The question is, after paying that cost, do you want to expend a 3rd-level slot and get a fireball? Most of the time, the answer is yes: You already decided that was a good idea when you cast fireball in the first place.

Now, perhaps you would not have cast that first fireball if you had one less spell slot. In that case it might make sense to refrain from counter-countering. But most of the time, the same logic that led you to cast fireball originally argues for using another slot to sustain it*.

Similar logic applies from the counterspellers' point of view. They decided it was worth expending a 3rd-level slot to stop the fireball. That slot is a sunk cost. Now they're back in the same position as before: Do nothing and get blasted, or expend a 3rd-level slot and stop it.

Counterspell ping-pong looks insane when you see four 3rd-level slots burned wrestling over a single fireball, but each step is a rational choice for the person taking it.

*In fact, that logic is even stronger now. Previously, if you chose "no fireball," you could do something else with your action instead. Now you can't.

 

[fearsomepirate]

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.

I mean, sure, you can do this. You have lots of options as a DM. Casting monsters can just always

a) be invisible
b) gain surprise
c) have a few sorcery points for Subtle Spell
d) be far away and have Distant Spell
e) etc

This is what I meant by contrived. Always doing something to ensure one specific spell doesn't shut down the encounter is contrived. I don't really do this for other spells, like I'm not thinking about making sure Banishment or Forcecage or Hypnotic Pattern or other non-damage spells don't just ruin things.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think there is a sunk cost fallacy going on here (or a reversed sunk cost fallacy?). Consider from the point of view of the original caster: You expend a 3rd-level slot to cast a fireball. It gets countered. Now you have a choice:

1) Do nothing. You are down one 3rd-level slot.
2) Counter the counterspell. You are down two 3rd-level spell slots, and you get a fireball.

You will be down one 3rd-level slot either way. That is a sunk cost and irrelevant. The question is, after paying that cost, do you want to expend a 3rd-level slot and get a fireball? Most of the time, the answer is yes: You already decided that was a good idea when you cast fireball in the first place.

Now, perhaps you would not have cast that first fireball if you had one less spell slot. In that case it might make sense to refrain from counter-countering. But most of the time, the same logic that led you to cast fireball originally argues for using another slot to sustain it*.

Similar logic applies from the counterspellers' point of view. They decided it was worth expending a 3rd-level slot to stop the fireball. That slot is a sunk cost. Now they're back in the same position as before: Do nothing and get blasted, or expend a 3rd-level slot and stop it.

Counterspell ping-pong looks insane when you see four 3rd-level slots burned wrestling over a single fireball, but each step is a rational choice for the person taking it.

*In fact, that logic is even stronger now. Previously, if you chose "no fireball," you could do something else with your action instead. Now you can't.

I know what you're saying, and I understand what you're getting across, I just don't agree. I don't think that counterspell is as problematic as you are implying, and a "wasted action" isn't as big of a deal for us. We have had plenty of fun with counterspell on both the giving and receiving end. (My Ebberon character is a 9th level Abjurer and Counterspell is one of his signature spells...so it comes up a lot.) I've never seen this 'ping pong' thing you describe, and it sounds pretty strange. Why would anyone sacrifice multiple spell slots and reactions just for ~28 points of fire damage? To each their own, I guess.

Now I'll admit there are times when we need NEED NEED a spell to connect, and so we take measures to make sure it does. We will blind the enemy spellcaster, maybe blanket the area with darkness or fog, hide, move out of range, move him out of range, trick him into spending his reaction, etc., etc. I realize that there isn't one simple solution that will work for all situations, but I think that's a feature, not a bug. It adds an element of strategy.

My favorite trick so far was when my wizard used his of magic missiles against an enemy caster. He used his reaction to cast Shield and negated nine whole points of Magic Missile damage, but he really should have saved it to counter the cleric's Silence spell, or the paladin's Smite.

Anyway.

I can see how some folks have a problem with it but Counterspell just isn't that big of a deal for us, and I doubt it ever will be. Sure it's handy, but it's not going to win any battles for you. An enemy that uses a 3rd level spell slot to cast Counterspell isn't using it to throw lightning or explode a room or fly away. And he just used his reaction, too, so he isn't using it to Hellish Rebuke the paladin and the rogue can use his bonus action for something other than disengage. And et cetera. (shrug) As good as it is, it's still not something I'd use constantly.

I'm still in the "not broken, don't fix" camp.

 

[Stalker0]

I've never seen this 'ping pong' thing you describe, and it sounds pretty strange. Why would anyone sacrifice multiple spell slots and reactions just for ~28 points of fire damage? To each their own, I guess.

I agree that such a fight over a fireball is probably a bit much, so lets change the script. How about if the PCs were trying to stop the BBEG from banishing the two fighters in the frontline. Would you ping pong now?

 

[CleverNickName]

I agree that such a fight over a fireball is probably a bit much, so lets change the script. How about if the PCs were trying to stop the BBEG from banishing the two fighters in the frontline. Would you ping pong now?

Probably not, since now we're talking multiple 5th level spell slots. In this hypothetical situation, I'd try once and if it didn't work, I'd switch to dispel magic and hope the rogue can backstab hard enough to break its concentration.

It would have to be a really strange, highly-specific situation to make me want to spend multiple spell slots, my action, and my reaction, just to cast a single spell. I haven't seen such a situation yet, but I admit I haven't seen everything.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Easy enough for the GM to say "Old spells resist more", and either have it suppressed briefly or "You can't dispel this with the standard spell". Depending on how rare higher level casters are, though, I'd probably just say "This effect is resistant to dispel, and can only be removed with a level [7,8,9] slot"

Any number of ways you can house rule or improvise your way out of it. One I've used in the past was to give the Uber-Wizards of Legend a "Spell Lock" abjuration that imposed disadvantage on Dispel checks and added +5 to the DC*. Often still possible to dispel after "locking" with several days worth of concerted dispel attempts - but impractical in a particular combat encounter.

* And took a day to cast so that any mysteriously surviving Uber-Wizards couldn't use Spell Lock in combat.

 

[ccs]

As usual they've made this more complex than it really needs to be, rendering it an incredibly rare action in my xp.
In all the years I've been running/playing 5e? I've seen 3 spells countered. One by myself. Two by another player.
And I've yet to see it done in 3x/PF1.

 

[Xetheral]

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

That's where Ready is useful: go around a corner, spend your Action to Ready a spell (which casts it) with the trigger "when I next see [the intended target]" then walk back out from behind the corner with the rest of your movement and spend your Reaction to release the readied spell. It uses your Action and Reaction, but since you're behind total cover when the spell is cast (i.e. when the Ready action is taken) you're immune to Counterspell.

This tactic works best for spellcasters that don't have Counterspell available, making the additional expenditure of the Reaction less painful.

 

[Oofta]

As usual they've made this more complex than it really needs to be, rendering it an incredibly rare action in my xp.
In all the years I've been running/playing 5e? I've seen 3 spells countered. One by myself. Two by another player.
And I've yet to see it done in 3x/PF1.

Different people have different experiences. In one campaign no enemy spellcaster ever got a spell off if counter spell was an option. Eventually the DM just stopped using casters that could be countered because there was no point.

Admittedly the DM was lenient on letting people know what was being cast, but it was still boring as all get out.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Monsters with counterspell aren't particularly common. What happens more often than the players blowing through a bunch of 3rd-level slots to make sure a spell happens is monsters that simply can't cast spells. This isn't notable to the players. Hey, it was just another monster we killed, some scary thing with fangs that we stabbed. From the DM side, it's like, okay, these monsters all have some available spell actions...meh, action economy sucks and the players will counter anyway...fine...they just fly over and try to melee.