D&D 5E Goldilocks Poll: Counterspell

[Helldritch]

I like the counterspell spell but it might be on how I play. When there is a combat, only one reaction is allowed per side per turn. So you have to declare your reaction and one of your opponents gets to react to your reaction. No I counter the counter that counter. The only way I have allowed is two cast two counters on the same spell. Not a thing which happens a lot. We came to this way of doing when I served players a taste of their own medicine. Two PC casters against four of mine. They got fed up quite fast and we reached the conclusion that one reaction per stimulus was ample enough.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

 

[Dausuul]

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

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.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One thing I'm picking up: if the player's tactics involve spamming counterspell (usually just by having a lot of people who can cast it) the tactic gets really old really fast - and there's no easy solution; because: 1. any nerf will get pushback, 2: needing to play around it creates a very specific meta (ie enemies need to all use the same tactics), and 3. it's a really powerful tactic if you have enough pc's to do it and the dm sends any kind of spellcasting enemies at you.

If this were an MMORPG, the community would call it the optimal way to play and a lot of players would get really annoyed at any player who doesn't spam counterspell.

On the other hand, this isn't an MMORPG, so if it isn't getting spammed at you table for whatever reason, it's fine and actually pretty well balanced.

 

[delericho]

I don't think it's too powerful (and it certainly isn't too weak), but after seeing it in action for the last several levels IMC, I pretty much agree with this:

• Too toxic: This porridge is actually radioactive sludge.

 

[ccooke]

When the party starts spamming counterspell... Have your NPCs cast cantrips.
Magic-using enemies are supposed to be intelligent, and therefore a spell battle should be a battle of wits with them.
Except when it's thematically appropriate for the party to just steamroller some enemies, which does come up!

 

[jgsugden]

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.

Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern, etc... are cheaper and have the same issues in terms of spell level. Counterspell costs a reaction and (generally) counters an action, but the I've seen holds, banishments, etc... negate many rounds of actions.

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.

The most pivotal and exciting moment of Season 1 of Critical Role was a counterspell (for many reasons). If you laid out the most exciting moments of the show, over the past 6 years, well timed counterspells that save the party from disaster would feature prominently for both campaigns.

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.

Again, that is not my experience. Frustration, rather than boredom, tends to be the response to a counterspell when it is used against a player. The negation of their plans requires them to rethink their approach, and that often creates extra drama.

I've just not experienced what you're describing. Can anyone point to some video of it being lackluster?

 

[CleverNickName]

Me, comparing the rules in Xanathar's Guide with those in the Core Rulebooks:

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I like players having it because it means I don't have to feel as bad throwing potential party killer magic at them.

 

[fearsomepirate]

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.

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.