Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Goldilocks Poll: Counterspell
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 8222133" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>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 <em>fireball</em>. It gets countered. Now you have a choice:</p><p></p><p>1) Do nothing. You are down one 3rd-level slot.</p><p>2) Counter the <em>counterspell</em>. You are down two 3rd-level spell slots, and you get a <em>fireball</em>.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>fireball</em>? Most of the time, the answer is yes: You already decided that was a good idea when you cast <em>fireball </em>in the first place.</p><p></p><p>Now, perhaps you would not have cast that first <em>fireball</em> 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 <em>fireball</em> originally argues for using another slot to sustain it*.</p><p></p><p>Similar logic applies from the counterspellers' point of view. They decided it was worth expending a 3rd-level slot to stop the <em>fireball</em>. 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.</p><p></p><p><em>Counterspell</em> ping-pong looks insane when you see four 3rd-level slots burned wrestling over a single <em>fireball</em>, but each step is a rational choice for the person taking it.</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">*In fact, that logic is even stronger now. Previously, if you chose "no <em>fireball</em>," you could do something else with your action instead. Now you can't.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 8222133, member: 58197"] 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 [I]fireball[/I]. It gets countered. Now you have a choice: 1) Do nothing. You are down one 3rd-level slot. 2) Counter the [I]counterspell[/I]. You are down two 3rd-level spell slots, and you get a [I]fireball[/I]. 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 [I]fireball[/I]? Most of the time, the answer is yes: You already decided that was a good idea when you cast [I]fireball [/I]in the first place. Now, perhaps you would not have cast that first [I]fireball[/I] 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 [I]fireball[/I] 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 [I]fireball[/I]. 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. [I]Counterspell[/I] ping-pong looks insane when you see four 3rd-level slots burned wrestling over a single [I]fireball[/I], but each step is a rational choice for the person taking it. [SIZE=3]*In fact, that logic is even stronger now. Previously, if you chose "no [I]fireball[/I]," you could do something else with your action instead. Now you can't.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Goldilocks Poll: Counterspell
Top