D&D 5E Goldilocks Poll: Counterspell

[jgsugden]

For the people that say that that Counterspell is boring, I again suggest listening to the battle with Vecna on Critical Role (2nd to last episode of Campaign 1 - episode 114). Then, listen to Matt Colville discuss the episode and how the most critical counterspell in the session was incredibly dramatic.

I see chained Counterspells in parties with multiple spellcasters at higher levels when they face multiple spellcasters - but it is rare. Very. Most combats do not feature spellcasters with counterspell, and the few that do have it don't have multiple monsters with it.

Critical Role - Vecna Ascended:

Matt Colville:

 

[Oofta]

For the people that say that that Counterspell is boring, I again suggest listening to the battle with Vecna on Critical Role (2nd to last episode of Campaign 1 - episode 114). Then, listen to Matt Colville discuss the episode and how the most critical counterspell in the session was incredibly dramatic.

I see chained Counterspells in parties with multiple spellcasters at higher levels when they face multiple spellcasters - but it is rare. Very. Most combats do not feature spellcasters with counterspell, and the few that do have it don't have multiple monsters with it.

Critical Role - Vecna Ascended:

Matt Colville:

It's boring when every single enemy caster can never get a single spell off. Maybe that never happens to you. I'm happy for you. Some of us haven't been so lucky.

EDIT: P.S. I don't have time to listen to six and a half hours of video.

 

[fearsomepirate]

It's boring when every single enemy caster can never get a single spell off. Maybe that never happens to you. I'm happy for you. Some of us haven't been so lucky.

EDIT: P.S. I don't have time to listen to six and a half hours of video.

I have recorded a 2-hour video on why six-hour videos are unwatchable. Link is at the end of my unskippable 45-minute video on why Snappy Puffs are the ultimate gamer food.

 

[FarBeyondC]

I happen to like Counterspell chains- in fact, the longer the better. It just means that the next spellcaster to go actually gets to do their next spell unimpeded (due to everyone using their reactions already).

 

[Oofta]

I happen to like Counterspell chains- in fact, the longer the better. It just means that the next spellcaster to go actually gets to do their next spell unimpeded (due to everyone using their reactions already).

Unless of course a PC has a turn in between. Also assumes multiple enemy spellcasters which, if they're of appropriate level makes encounter planning and balance difficult.

There are plenty of things you can do to nerf counterspell, but I'd rather either ban it or tweak it for it to work better. I kind of like the idea of only 1 person can counterspell and the original caster can "raise the ante". Feels more evocative of a spell duel to me.

 

[jgsugden]

It's boring when every single enemy caster can never get a single spell off. Maybe that never happens to you. I'm happy for you. Some of us haven't been so lucky.

EDIT: P.S. I don't have time to listen to six and a half hours of video.

D&D is an RPG, a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. You can take any story outline and tell it in a boring, or compelling, way. Saying that counterspell is boring when so many other people do not have that experience means that it is inherently not the mechanics that are the root of the issue.

Spending the time to see how others do it in a compelling way is one method of improving your games. I was a pretty good DM (by review of my players) prior to ever seeing Critical Role. I have stolen a lot from Mercer (and from the players in that game) that made me much better. Mercer's methods are not the only way to be a great DM, and he does some things that I would not, but overall, he is the best DM I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot of different DMs in games I've played, at conventions, and in game stores).

What makes him best in my eyes? His games are more compelling than than other games. They have better stories, better player immersion into the campaign, and better reading of the table and players. He does all this without giving up the luck of the dice, or backtracking to avoid unfortunate consequences (as can be seen by this week's episode).

If you're seeing your NPC / opponent wizards never get off a spell due to counterspell in your higher level game (as they do not get enough slots to counterspell freely until 9th level or so), then there are a few things to consider:

1.) Are the enemies smart enough and experienced enough to have countermeasures? If so, why are they not using them?

2.) If not, and the story should allow for their spells to be countered - why not be happy that the PCs are heroically winning? Do we get frustrated because the cleric wipes out the army of skeletons with turn undead? Or that the fireball clears out the fodder between the PCs and the BBEG? There is no better time for a bad guy to sneer and show their anger than when their plans are foiled - and that is a great fraking moment for players.

3.) How do the players feel? Are they bored by the counterspells? Or are they enjoying the victories?

4.) Are your PCs resting too often? In the games where we have 6 encounters between long rests, which is in the ballpark of the guidance from the books, there is a lot more attention paid to preserving resources. Every game will have a "one and done" adventuring day at least occasionally, but in most of the games I experience as a player or DM, nobody knows if it will be a one and done day and they are fearful of using up their resources.

 

[Oofta]

D&D is an RPG, a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. You can take any story outline and tell it in a boring, or compelling, way. Saying that counterspell is boring when so many other people do not have that experience means that it is inherently not the mechanics that are the root of the issue.

Spending the time to see how others do it in a compelling way is one method of improving your games. I was a pretty good DM (by review of my players) prior to ever seeing Critical Role. I have stolen a lot from Mercer (and from the players in that game) that made me much better. Mercer's methods are not the only way to be a great DM, and he does some things that I would not, but overall, he is the best DM I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot of different DMs in games I've played, at conventions, and in game stores).

What makes him best in my eyes? His games are more compelling than than other games. They have better stories, better player immersion into the campaign, and better reading of the table and players. He does all this without giving up the luck of the dice, or backtracking to avoid unfortunate consequences (as can be seen by this week's episode).

If you're seeing your NPC / opponent wizards never get off a spell due to counterspell in your higher level game (as they do not get enough slots to counterspell freely until 9th level or so), then there are a few things to consider:

1.) Are the enemies smart enough and experienced enough to have countermeasures? If so, why are they not using them?

2.) If not, and the story should allow for their spells to be countered - why not be happy that the PCs are heroically winning? Do we get frustrated because the cleric wipes out the army of skeletons with turn undead? Or that the fireball clears out the fodder between the PCs and the BBEG? There is no better time for a bad guy to sneer and show their anger than when their plans are foiled - and that is a great fraking moment for players.

3.) How do the players feel? Are they bored by the counterspells? Or are they enjoying the victories?

4.) Are your PCs resting too often? In the games where we have 6 encounters between long rests, which is in the ballpark of the guidance from the books, there is a lot more attention paid to preserving resources. Every game will have a "one and done" adventuring day at least occasionally, but in most of the games I experience as a player or DM, nobody knows if it will be a one and done day and they are fearful of using up their resources.

For #1, if the enemy spellcaster always nerfs counterspell, why even have counterspell? It's also annoying, it feels like the DM is not playing "fair".

For #2, it's just boring and swingy. If it works, you just shut down what should have been a boss. If it doesn't and you've compensated thinking the caster would be shut down, what should have been a medium (or even easy) fight becomes a TPK.

For #3, I'm a player as well. In addition, in the game I played where it was a major tactic, yes it was boring. I have no issue with the players stomping on my encounters now and then. But when it's the same tactic? Every time? No clever tactics, no stress just "nah, don't bother"? It's boring for me.

For #4, well I wasn't the DM for the campaign where this was a major issue but then it still goes back to difficulty of planning. Do I assume my biggest spells will be countered or not? How do I balance it? I have no clue how many slots they will have for a particular fight.

I get high praise for running fun games. I simply don't have a good way of handling counterspell other than to never use casters or have them use tactics that nerf the spell after a certain level. Since I always have a goal of running a game to 20th level (and having more than a session or two at 20th), it is an issue for a significant portion of the campaign.

 

[Stalker0]

2.) If not, and the story should allow for their spells to be countered - why not be happy that the PCs are heroically winning? Do we get frustrated because the cleric wipes out the army of skeletons with turn undead? Or that the fireball clears out the fodder between the PCs and the BBEG?

Again it comes down to degrees.

When its once in a while, yes its a fun moment to have the players just curb stomp a guy who doesn't even get a shot off. But when it starts happening routinely it gets frustrating for the DM.

Its not heroically winning if your villain doesn't get to be villainous. The ideal fight is where the villain throws down big, the players get scared, but they come out on top. You don't want the fight where the villain takes an action, it fizzles out, and then he gets destroyed to be your normal.

There is a reason so much effort is spent on legendries to give them ways to circumvent conditions that hinder their actions, and yet even they are painfully vulnerable to counterspell.

This was my experience with counterspell in my games. I tried many variants to see if I could adjust for it, and I decided it was more work than I wanted to put in, so I removed it.

 

[jgsugden]

For #1, if the enemy spellcaster always nerfs counterspell, why even have counterspell? It's also annoying, it feels like the DM is not playing "fair".

Don't always do it. Read what my question was and recognize there was a condition there. D&D is an RPG. You're telling a story. It is great to have the NPCs act intelligently.

For #2, it's just boring and swingy. If it works, you just shut down what should have been a boss. If it doesn't and you've compensated thinking the caster would be shut down, what should have been a medium (or even easy) fight becomes a TPK.

If those are the only options in your mind, you're ignoring ample evidence that other possibilities are not only possible, but more common.

For #3, I'm a player as well. In addition, in the game I played where it was a major tactic, yes it was boring. I have no issue with the players stomping on my encounters now and then. But when it's the same tactic? Every time? No clever tactics, no stress just "nah, don't bother"? It's boring for me.

Try using some non spellcasters if they always use it - because that means that almost all combats have a spellcaster. Counterspell only comes up as a possibility in about 10% of my encounters (of the appropriate levels) because only about 1 in 10 features spellcasting (if that.... probably less).

However, I will note that when you have a class like sorcerer in play, which knows very few spells, you have to realize that repetition of spells is expected in 5E.

For #4, well I wasn't the DM for the campaign where this was a major issue but then it still goes back to difficulty of planning. Do I assume my biggest spells will be countered or not? How do I balance it? I have no clue how many slots they will have for a particular fight.

How do you plan for the breath weapon of a dragon? Will they use it once? Every round? How many PCs will be in it each time? Will the PCs save?

And what about those battles where the PCs roll nothing but ones and the DM rolls high all the time?

PCs can handle a range of difficulty. Not a single point. In that video I reference above there are three meteor swarms cast - and none of them were countered. If I told you that the bad guys were going to unleash three meteor swarms on a group of 5E PCs, most people would assume that was an immediate death sentence.

I get high praise for running fun games. I simply don't have a good way of handling counterspell other than to never use casters or have them use tactics that nerf the spell after a certain level. Since I always have a goal of running a game to 20th level (and having more than a session or two at 20th), it is an issue for a significant portion of the campaign.

Then - seriously - it would be well worth your time to watch the videos I have posted above to see how it can be a very exciting and engaging addition to the combat at 20th level. There is a video of just the uses of Counterspell throughout Critical Role as well (I posted that as well).

In the end: Many DMs run the game in a way that Counterspell is an exciting and engaging addition to the game. If you struggle with it, there are resources to help you make it a better experience. You don't need to use them, but so far it seems like the 'boring factor' is a self fulfilling prophecy - it is boring because you treat it as boring.

I have run a few campaigns to 20th level in 5E. I have played in a few as well. There were a lot more higher level games that did not go to 20. I've played one bard, as well as sorcerers, warlocks (who very rarely used it - but they were clutch uses) and wizards that have it. I've seen frustrated DMs who didn't like that we used it, but I've seen more DMs who use it as a moment for scene chewing frustration that makes the PCs feel bad %$# - and a lot of situations where the PCs hearts break when they realize they're 65 feet away when the key spell is cast.

You're free to banish it from your games - but I think that cuts off some very fun opportunities.

 

[jgsugden]

There is a separate point to consider: Preparing a spell has a cost. It means you're not preparing another spell in place of it.

If I prepare counterspell, and the next 20 combats feature no spellcasters, that was a waste of a prepared spell. In 5E, that hurts. My biggest struggle in 5E is that I can never have all of the spells I want to prepare prepared. My sorcerers are always considering a level of bard or cleric just to get a net 3 (or more) additional spells. Even my wizards look at a level of cleric to bust open the spells they can have prepared. Early in 5E I played a wild sorcerer that had a rough time on one adventure when most of his spells were useless. Counterspell has a cost even when you do not face spellcasting enemies.