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

[kigmatzomat]

Really dislike this. The glass cannon aspect of casters is somewhat overrated as generally casters have meat shields to block many attacks. (On both sides).

Counterspell is already pretty iffy unless you have layered on spells to boost your success, which is itself a big opportunity cost. Then there is the design trend away from spells (e.g. Vecna statblock light on spells?!?) Which itself is a nerf.

I like having de-escalation spells. "I'm going to block your spell rather than fireball you. Maybe we can talk this out?"

And imo, spell-counterspell-countercounterspell is a classic caster duel.

 

[Leatherhead]

Counterspell was always a "Less powerful than Stun" control option for players to use.

While trading one PC reaction for a Monster Action is almost always a good idea, using a CON save of all things makes it highly unlikely that you would land it most of the time. (CON is one of the strongest saves in the game for monsters, espechally on monsters that matter like Liches and Dragons). Furthermore, thanks to new monster design tricks (like using magical attacks instead of spells, or casting a spell as part of multiattack,) it doesn't even eat up an entire monster action.

All that combined, I have to say that the proposed changes to Counterspell aren't less frustrating, they are more frustrating. Less use cases, harder to use, and diminished effect all add up to disappointment. Perhaps even regulating it to the same fate as combat healing, being a waste of time unless someone is going to drop dead.

I have to wonder why WoTC is taking a baseball bat to the knees of defensive playstyle options recently.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And imo, spell-counterspell-countercounterspell is a classic caster duel.

I mean it's both boring for everyone involved (particularly the onlookers) and is just a null result.

Seeing it as a "classic caster duel" is absolutely bizarre imo. It's factually not that. It's more akin to one of those pathetic slap-fights some people get into, where neither is actually throwing hands, they're just sort of patting at each other. Or even two kids saying "Nuh uh!" at each other.

D&D could absolutely have a badass "caster duel" mechanic, with serious consequences for whoever lost that duel - and it is something that's extremely common in fiction. But in fiction almost no-one ever casts "counterspell" unless it's an extremely powerful Wizard casually dismissing the pathetic efforts of a far weaker one, and even then it's usually more dramatic like they've been cut off from casting for minutes or longer, rather than just had one spell batted aside.

Actual caster duels in fiction involve casting an opposing spell, not counterspell. D&D doesn't really provide for this right now but it could.

I'd say get rid of Counterspell and create like "Beam of Opposition" which you cast with a Reaction like Counterspell, but it only works on damaging spells, and redirects them at you if they weren't already, and then have to make an opposed check, and if you win, their spell is countered and they take like, 6d6 Force damage (assuming a 3rd-level spell), but if you fail the check, they can either cast as normal, and you take 3d6 Force damage backlash as you're brushed aside, or they can choose that the spell is redirected to you and you automatically fail any save against the spell, or their to-hit roll automatically succeeds - any AOE becomes centered on you, even if it would normally be outside range of the like.

There, now you have a "classic caster duel" mechanic. One that involves risk, is kind of exciting, features beams and booms, not just "fizzle" vs "fizzle".

Was that hard? It was not.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have to wonder why WoTC is taking a baseball bat to the knees of defensive playstyle options recently.

They've been doing it for the whole of 5E. You're just only noticing now because they've finally come for casters.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

My issue is, I feel like for every "epic CR moment" with counterspell, there is another table whose BBEG fight just fell completely flat because the party just neutered their spells.

Ultimately this is the same problem with "conditions" on bosses, and why legendary resistance was created. Now LR is not a great mechanic, but I think we all respect the reason it exists.....we want bosses to feel like bosses. Sure we want the players to win (hehe MOST of the time), but we want the boss to at least feel like a credible threat, not a laughing stock that sits their dumbly as their actions are taken out and the party just beats on them.

The new version at least lets legendary bosses use the tools they have been given to counter conditions and now apply that to counterspell. The argument that counterspell should bypass this is the same argument taht thinks its okay to just stun a boss on the first spell and call the fight then and there.... and to me that's a failing argument. The game is designed to allow legendaries a means to avoid a lot of the "one save and your out" type of spells, and counterspell should be no different.

 

[Asisreo]

I mean it's both boring for everyone involved (particularly the onlookers) and is just a null result.

Seeing it as a "classic caster duel" is absolutely bizarre imo. It's factually not that. It's more akin to one of those pathetic slap-fights some people get into, where neither is actually throwing hands, they're just sort of patting at each other. Or even two kids saying "Nuh uh!" at each other.

It also highly favor spellcasters even more when non-counterspellable PC's just have to sit there and let a debilitating spell resolve while the most impactful classes in the game both protect themselves and disrupt the enemy with a fairly low-level resource at high levels.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We shouldn't be blaming Counterspell for the fact that WotC can't Boss Fight their way out of a paper bag.

If your BBEG fails because they failed to get one single spell off, then they were either going to fail naturally or TPK with their big unfairness spell.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My issue is, I feel like for every "epic CR moment" with counterspell, there is another table whose BBEG fight just fell completely flat because the party just neutered their spells.

That seems like user error, to me. If your party has more than 2 PCs that can Counterspell…don’t use a BBEG that is 90% spells?

Ultimately this is the same problem with "conditions" on bosses, and why legendary resistance was created. Now LR is not a great mechanic, but I think we all respect the reason it exists.....we want bosses to feel like bosses.

LR is a great mechanic.

Sure we want the players to win (hehe MOST of the time), but we want the boss to at least feel like a credible threat, not a laughing stock that sits their dumbly as their actions are taken out and the party just beats on them.

The new version at least lets legendary bosses use the tools they have been given to counter conditions and now apply that to counterspell. The argument that counterspell should bypass this is the same argument taht thinks its okay to just stun a boss on the first spell and call the fight then and there.... and to me that's a failing argument. The game is designed to allow legendaries a means to avoid a lot of the "one save and your out" type of spells, and counterspell should be no different.

One Counterspell cannot possibly end a fight with a legendary boss creature. They can generally cast spells with legendary actions, much less whatever else they can do.

And if they’re a mage, why don’t they also have Counterspell?

 

[Stalker0]

That seems like user error, to me. If your party has more than 2 PCs that can Counterspell…don’t use a BBEG that is 90% spells?

LR is a great mechanic.

One Counterspell cannot possibly end a fight with a legendary boss creature. They can generally cast spells with legendary actions, much less whatever else they can do.

And if they’re a mage, why don’t they also have Counterspell?

So lets look at a lich, probably the standard example of a "high level BBEG spellcaster".

Liches don't have counterspell by default, and don't cast anything other than a cantrip with legendary actions (which we don't likely care to counterspell).

If the answer to counterspell is "well you should also use counterspell", that right there tells me the spell is too good.

 

[billd91]

I don't have a problem with the original counterspell. I think it has an interesting place in the game and made for some interesting choices if the players thought that countering the spell was critical enough to upcast it (see the aforementioned climactic battle with Vecna in Critical Role season 1).
That said, I think the die roll was a bit too easy even if cast at its base 3rd level, so I can get behind shifting it to a Con save for the caster being countered. I think that particular save makes it a good compromise between being too easily resisted like the main caster stat save probably would have been and being too hard since many casters will have Con as a fairly high stat just for the hit points. Plus it means the NPC boss can use Legendary Resistance to auto-save if needed (at least until that resource is ablated away - plus it's more choices for the DM to decide what to burn the auto-saves on which is a good thing).
The problem I have is that with everything else, the general applicability of counterspell has been so reduced in scope that its been way too battered by the nerf bat.