D&D 5E Goldilocks Poll: Counterspell

[CleverNickName]

The way I see it: you are burning a 3rd level spell slot and your reaction just to have a chance of blocking the enemy's Power Word Kill or Disintegrate or whatever. So it feels fair to me. Sure, it will automatically succeed against lower-level spells, but odds are you are going to run out of 3rd level slots long before they run out of all 1st-3rd level slots.

If I felt that Counterspell was too powerful or unfair, I'd argue that Legendary Resistance is even moreso. But I don't.

 

[Stalker0]

Counterspell is one of the few spells in my game that I have banned. I tried 3 different versions of it across various 3 campaigns, and was never satisfied with it. I banned it in this current game, and haven't looked back. Here are my reasons.

1) Breaks Action Economy: Actions are exceedingly precious in 5e, where a 3 round combat is often the norm. Being able to remove an enemies key action is dominant, especially in my type of campaigns where I tend to do fewer but more epic fights, with more long rests as the norm.

2) Every caster fight is based around it: There are tactics to avoid counterspell, but you quickly realize that you have to apply them every time there is a caster you want to actually be effective. I didn't enjoy a single 3rd level spell dictating the conditions of so many of my fights.

3) I didn't enjoy using it against my players either: What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so at first I decided if my players were going to use it, well then I would too to keep things fair. Thing is....I really didn't enjoy using it against them. Anything that denies player action has to be sparring....you damage a player, they will get mad and feisty and come back swinging. You deny them actions for a couple of rounds and they will pull out the phone and become a vegetable.

The fact that I denied their action and cost them a spell just was too painful, I've used some rat ba$$$$$ DM tricks, but this one didn't feel creative or interesting, it just felt dirty.

4) The Counterspell Ping Pong is annoying. Sure it seems cool to have the "wizard duel" where a wizard cast a spell, which is counterspell, and the counterspell is counterspell, etc etc. That's one once, but when it becomes a regular occurrence with casters it becomes tedious.


So that's my rationale, took my a lot of trying before I finally realized that this one spell was given me more personal headache than any other in the game, and my players have enough other tricks that I didn't need to get so worked up about just one....so I removed it.

 

[jgsugden]

I am curious why Counterspell is specifically angering to some DMS. I'm just looking for answers here:

... Here are my reasons.

1) Breaks Action Economy: Actions are exceedingly precious in 5e, where a 3 round combat is often the norm. Being able to remove an enemies key action is dominant, especially in my type of campaigns where I tend to do fewer but more epic fights, with more long rests as the norm.

Don't spells like Hold Monster do more to break the action economy?

2) Every caster fight is based around it: There are tactics to avoid counterspell, but you quickly realize that you have to apply them every time there is a caster you want to actually be effective. I didn't enjoy a single 3rd level spell dictating the conditions of so many of my fights.

It seems like you're talking about your PCs being effective with the spell. Do you have the same reaction if they use hold monster to lock down enemies?

3) I didn't enjoy using it against my players either: What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so at first I decided if my players were going to use it, well then I would too to keep things fair. Thing is....I really didn't enjoy using it against them. Anything that denies player action has to be sparring....you damage a player, they will get mad and feisty and come back swinging. You deny them actions for a couple of rounds and they will pull out the phone and become a vegetable.

As a DM, I use it a decent amount on spellcasters that would plan to fight spellcasters. However, if the PCs go after a bad guy that is not expecting a magic fight, it is rarely on them. I have no qualms about using it, and using it intelligently, when a wizard comes with it prepared.

4) The Counterspell Ping Pong is annoying. Sure it seems cool to have the "wizard duel" where a wizard cast a spell, which is counterspell, and the counterspell is counterspell, etc etc. That's one once, but when it becomes a regular occurrence with casters it becomes tedious.

How often does it happen? In my games, which do feature a lot of humanoid combat, it doesn't come up all that often. I have had a PC cast a spell, and then seen 6 counterspells thrown to back and forth counter the counters. That brought smiles, not frustration, to the table.

Generally speaking: Why is Counterspell more annoying than Hold Monster, or Hypnotic Gaze?

 

[Stalker0]

Generally speaking: Why is Counterspell more annoying than Hold Monster, or Hypnotic Gaze?

I think the answer is the action economy of counterspell itself. You get your full round of action, and you can keep this in the back pocket if you need it, and then bust it out for a small action cost.

A spell like hold monster is a commitment, the caster is choosing to trade his action to deny the opponent's AND it requires concentration. That alone is a major balancing action....concentration is an incredibly precious resource in 5e casting, a resource counterspell does not consume.

 

[Gadget]

Count me among those who think the spell is unneeded and slows down the game for little purpose or value.

 

[Stormonu]

I agree with @jgsugden and I’d think Banishment or the various Hold spells are a far worse spell than Counterspell for upsetting the action economy.

 

[Vael]

I like Counter Magic, Blue mage here, but I do think that Counterspell as a spell is a little too powerful. Or, to be more accurate, the counterplay to Counterspell is limited, almost purely a range/detectibility issue, with a side of shenanigans. I haven't banned it or tested any alternatives yet. Though I think just moving it up to level 4 or 5 would help a lot, and offer a more limited version at 3rd.

 

[Oofta]

I am curious why Counterspell is specifically angering to some DMS. I'm just looking for answers hereon't spells like Hold Monster do more to break the action economy?It seems like you're talking about your PCs being effective with the spell. Do you have the same reaction if they use hold monster to lock down enemies?As a DM, I use it a decent amount on spellcasters that would plan to fight spellcasters. However, if the PCs go after a bad guy that is not expecting a magic fight, it is rarely on them. I have no qualms about using it, and using it intelligently, when a wizard comes with it prepared.How often does it happen? In my games, which do feature a lot of humanoid combat, it doesn't come up all that often. I have had a PC cast a spell, and then seen 6 counterspells thrown to back and forth counter the counters. That brought smiles, not frustration, to the table.

Generally speaking: Why is Counterspell more annoying than Hold Monster, or Hypnotic Gaze?

Imagine having a game with 3 PCs that can cast counterspell. Since you can counter counterspell, it's virtually impossible (especially at higher levels) for an enemy spellcaster to get a spell off unless you go out of your way to make it ineffective. If you're doing that why even have the spell?

You get into counterspell chains. BG1 casts a spell PC1 counters it so BG1 counters the counter then PC2 counters BG1's counter then BG2 counters PC2's counter and finally PC3 counters BG2's counter. I think I got that right because it's pretty counterintuitive.

I wasn't DMing that particular game, but this type of scenario came up more than once.

 

[jgsugden]

I think the answer is the action economy of counterspell itself. You get your full round of action, and you can keep this in the back pocket if you need it, and then bust it out for a small action cost.

A spell like hold monster is a commitment, the caster is choosing to trade his action to deny the opponent's AND it requires concentration. That alone is a major balancing action....concentration is an incredibly precious resource in 5e casting, a resource counterspell does not consume.

I see the argument, but the number of times a counterspell cost a PC dearly by preventing them from having that reaction to cast shield, absorb elements, etc... is not insignificant.

 

[jgsugden]

Hey DMs - for those of you looking for a strategy to bypass counterspells a bit more - readied actions. Bad guy readies an action to cast a spell after the counterspell happy PC goes. The PC does their thing. Ten the enemy casts their spell and deals with the counterspell. The PC is now without their reaction and the BBEG can cast their real spell.

It would be interesting to see people reference the battle between Vox Machina and Vecna in this conversation. Was that battle diminished by the presence of Counterspell? How would it have gone without it?