D&D (2024) Is Counterspell less frustrating now?

[Mistwell]

And all it cost you was a boat load of party HP, maybe some of their actions, the battlefield being altered in a huge way, the fighter being a sheep now... the possibilities are endless -- like a spellcaster's spell selection endless.

It didn't cost you any of that. That was the enemies doing, not yours. Everyone in the party understands high level foes are dangerous. They're there for that fight after all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hold on.

Do you think I'm saying Counterspell is the only spell this is a stopgap for and not just a whole big slate of spells?.

That’s what your words indicated. In a thread about one spell, you repeatedly and insistently referred to “the spell”. I tried to reply as though you meant “some/many spells” until the last one, but it doesn’t make sense as a set of statements unless it is referring to one singular spell.

I was just on a thread where someone objected to me saying no one does 8 per day. Made a sweet mythology joke about their reply and everything.

It’s the internet, there’s always 1.

By absolutely annihilating the pacing.

I’ve never experienced this, and am not familiar with it as a complaint about 5e.

You are still ignoring the core of my point about woflpacking by attacking my verbiage and appealing to emotion.

Acknowledge that you habitually use insults to emphasize your point, and I’ll be worried about whether I’m addressing every single thing you say.

There's not.

And Shield gives a bonus, it doesn't immediately negate.

There isn’t a difference.

Not the point. Spells are the problem. Spells are the ones that can instantly negate a monster in such as way that they needed a way to just say 'no' to them instead of fix them and fix boss monsters (and admit that one monster with one turn a round is not a match for 4-5 PCs with 4-5 turns a round).

Being able to “negate” a monster is only an issue with solo monster. It makes no sense to redesign the game to nerf spells so they can’t do that, when you can just redesign solo monsters instead.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That’s what your words indicated. In a thread about one spell, you repeatedly and insistently referred to “the spell”. I tried to reply as though you meant “some/many spells” until the last one, but it doesn’t make sense as a set of statements unless it is referring to one singular spell.

No, that wasn't what I was saying at all. Especially considering I was referencing spells riding off nostalgia and tradition -- when counterspell is new to 5e at least via the last two editions. Counterspelling with a dispel magic was a different terrible animal.

LR is a response to all the bad spell design they can't just rip out of the system.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, that wasn't what I was saying at all. Especially considering I was referencing spells riding off nostalgia and tradition -- when counterspell is new to 5e at least via the last two editions. Counterspelling with a dispel magic was a different terrible animal.

LR is a response to all the bad spell design they can't just rip out of the system.

You’re not reading what I wrote.

I replied under the assumption that you were talking about spells in general until the last one, because the last one didn’t make any sense unless I read it as being about one spell. Since you never named a spell, the only possible singular spell would be the one that the thread is about.

So your words lead down this path that you’re now way too focused on.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And I'm done.

shrug emoji.

 

[Maxperson]

I think its fairly clear you target the creature and affecting the creature when counterspelling. There isn't an effect to target while the target is casting the spell.

What does it do? Tickle the caster? Cause the caster intense pain? All it says is that it counters the spell while it's in the process of being cast. That seems to me to target the spell being cast and stop it.

 

[billd91]

What does it do? Tickle the caster? Cause the caster intense pain? All it says is that it counters the spell while it's in the process of being cast. That seems to me to target the spell being cast and stop it.

Technically, it says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." And that causes the spell to fail. Exactly how, doesn't really matter though it imposes no other condition or game effect. So I'd definitely say it's being cast on a target creature.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Technically, it says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." And that causes the spell to fail. Exactly how, doesn't really matter though it imposes no other condition or game effect. So I'd definitely say it's being cast on a target creature.

Agreed. But I'll go a step further. The Counterspell description goes on to say "The creature must make a Constitution saving throw."

I think if the spell forces the creature to make a Con save, the creature is the one being targeted. Also, didn't JC say that it requires a Con save because it matches the mechanics for Concentration for being disrupted?

Spell descriptions don't have a "target" line in the stat block. Sounds like the spell description just needs to be tidied up to clarify the target, and needs a bit of flavor to explain that it is trying to disrupt the magic. I'm sure it's doable.

 

[Asisreo]

What does it do? Tickle the caster? Cause the caster intense pain? All it says is that it counters the spell while it's in the process of being cast. That seems to me to target the spell being cast and stop it.

Sounds like excellent opportunity to give the spell flavor!

Maybe your player could do one of those memes where the wizard casts "Medical Complication" on an enemy casting a spell.

 

[billd91]

Agreed. But I'll go a step further. The Counterspell description goes on to say "The creature must make a Constitution saving throw."

The new version says that, yes, but both the new and old one have the same opening text implying the target is a creature. The saving throw line should strengthen that impression, though.
In any event, if there's something out there preventing a 3rd level spell from affecting the targeted caster, like a globe of invulnerability, it makes perfect sense for that protection to apply against a counterspell.