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

[mellored]

On the one hand, I'll miss the drama of rolling to try and counterspell a higher level spell. On the other, I love the simplicity of this and the thematics. I do think it should explicitly force a concentration check. If monsters get to use LR, players should get to use Warcaster (or any other concentration helping feature).

You can still try and counterspell a higher level spell, with drama.

They cast meteor swarm, you counterspell (in a level 3 slot), and they roll to see if it happens.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can still try and counterspell a higher level spell, with drama.

They cast meteor swarm, you counterspell (in a level 3 slot), and they roll to see if it happens.

But then they can just try again next turn, which… feels like a poor use of a 3rd level slot to me…

 

[M_Natas]

I think the new saving throw requirement is a good addition to the spell. However, since it now specifically targets spells that use V, S, or M components, it's become a much less useful spell for players. Most monsters cast spells without components, so those spells will be uncounterable. Most of the "spells" used by NPCs are not spells at all, and are thus uncounterable. This reduces the potential use to other PCs and NPC utility spells, which seems rather pointless.

But only being able to counterspell V, S and/or M component spells makes sense. It is logical in the game world and removes the meta knowledge.
DMs I played with used this part already as a house rule. That's why the subtle spell metamagic is actually meaningful.

I would also add that you need to counterspell a spell, before you see the effect.
It is implied in the 2014 spell description (you attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell) but rarley used that way. Because what that means is, that in order to counterspell by the 2014 Version, you need to counter the spell before it is announced what spell it actually is.
So ingame it would look like this:

"Evil McEvilface the Wizard of Evil starts to cast a spell. He takes a tiny Ball of bat guano and some sulfur out of his component pouch, starting and chant, moving his fingers in an intricate pattern!"
"Counterspell!"
"You interrupt the spell."

What is actually wrong play by the 2014 Version.
"Evil McEvilface the Wizard of Evil is casting fireball."
"Counterspell!"

Of course if you are doing it the second way it is no fun and you remove the biggest use case of subtle spell metamagic.

 

[mellored]

But then they can just try again next turn, which… feels like a poor use of a 3rd level slot to me…

Unless you cast silence or your rogue snipes them...

You spend a reaction to waste their action. That's an action economy advantage.

At level 5, when level 3 slots are premium, that's a bad trade. You'd only do it against a really big bad.

But at level 15, when you got slots to spare (and you don't upcast it), it's a good trade.

Also remember this goes both ways.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

But then they can just try again next turn, which… feels like a poor use of a 3rd level slot to me…

It can still buy a round - depending on the situation, that can very much decide the outcome of the combat. It's shifting it to a more targeted, situational tool.

Everyone's low hit points and clustered together? Counterspell that Fireball and give your team a chance to scatter and/or heal up out of the danger zone. Enemy's too mobile for your melee to get in range to hit? Counterspell their Misty Step and give the team a chance to get into Opportunity Attack range. Enemy's on their last legs and making a desperate play to escape and/or take you down with them? Counterspell it and buy your party another round to try and finish them off.

It's not designed to shut the opposing caster down permanently, but to strategically buy time at a crucial moment.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So the changes are now that it requires a saving throw from the target and that the spell slot is now longer lost now if countered.

I’d prefer a contested roll, and for it to be part of the general rules for Spellcasting rather than a spell itself, but this is decent.

Idk I like Counterspell as “basically dispel magic as a reaction”, but it’s true that a saving throw makes it take into account the power of the caster, but on the other hand I don’t want my rogue/wizard to be effectively incapable of counterspelling the Lich.

I also like the dynamic of burning higher level spell slots to avoid the change of failure. One of the most epic moments in Critical Role Campaign One was when Scanlan used his level 9 spell slot to Counterspell Vecna, who IIRC was trying to teleport or plane shift away from being bound into an eternal prison.

Ideally I’d want it to work like the force power in Star Wars Saga Edition that counters another force power, and you can counter the counter, and if they counter your counter-counter you both get hit by the force power that started the chain.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless you cast silence or your rogue snipes them...

You spend a reaction to waste their action. That's an action economy advantage.

Well, you spend your reaction and a 3rd level spell slot to waste their action. Whether that’s a good use of that spell slot does depend on how many of them you have though, as you observed.

At level 5, when level 3 slots are premium, that's a bad trade. You'd only do it against a really big bad.

But at level 15, when you got slots to spare (and you don't upcast it), it's a good trade.

Yeah, fair enough.

Also remember this goes both ways.

Does it? Honestly, with it only targeting spells with V, S, and/or M components and monsters moving towards spell-like abilities, opportunities for PCs to get use out of Counterspell are few and far between. Meanwhile, how many monsters and NPCs are likely to have access to Counterspell? I dunno, it seems like they’re just trying to design Counterspell out of relevance, which… I guess is probably good for the people who apparently think it’s the worst thing in the game

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It just slows the game down and makes it dumber. That's literally the sole impact it has. The game becomes more boring and less tactical, great, awesome thanks. The smarter your players are, the worse the impact, too (conversely with dumb-as-rocks players it's fine).

Mod Note:

Your experiences with the mechanic are valid, but surely, there’s less confrontational ways of expressing your opinion.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The changes to Counterspell are almost entirely irelellevant, sincet the current monster design paradigm is that monsters and NPCs don't cast spells in combat, but have spell-like abilities that do the same things as spells but aren't technically spells.

• Players won't be casting Counterspell, since there won't be any valid targets
• Monster won't be casting Counterspell, since monsters don't cast spells.

I suppose that if any caster-type NPC show up with a "Negate Spell" ability modeled on Counterspell, being on the receiving end of that will be less frustrating for players, since you get a save and keep your slot if the spell is interrupted. That feels much more fair than automatically losing both the spell and the slot with the 2014 version.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Huh? No, you have to spend the spell slot to cast counterspell. It’s the caster of the spell you’re countering who doesn’t lose their spell slot if they succeed their save.

Yes, but if your counterspell gets counterspelled, you get yours back. So only the last counterspell in a long chain of counter-counter-counter-counter-counterspells costs anything.

EDIT: or wait, how does it... whatever, I cannot handle all this retroactive negation, I just ban the spell if I'm running a game