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

[TreChriron]

Maybe where magic vs. magic is concerned, it should work like combat. You attack the spell.

Spell AC vs. magic is 15 + 1/2 Spell slot level (or 10+ or 12+, or 8+ spell lot level, or something balanced and enjoyable...).

You're attack is your normal attack DC for the spell casting class.

You cast counterspell, you roll a magic attack vs. the spell AC. If you hit, the spell is countered.

You can give BBEGs special abilities that increase a spell's AC.

IMHO, giving spells HP and having Dispel's do "damage to magic" and have any counter-magic work similar to combat would make the game easier to grok, and add a potentially nail-biting mechanic to a fight.

Edit to add: Maybe just give a +1 to attack for each slot above 3rd it was cast?

 

[Maxperson]

Oh Snap. Does a caster's Globe of Invulnerability or a Rakshasa's "Limited Magic Immunity" mean their spells can't be countered by low level counterspells? Should Counterspell be upcastable to overcome those limitations?

I think it's a rulings thing. Counterspell interrupts a creature, but it doesn't target the creature. Nor does it say it targets the spell. That means it's up to the DM to make a ruling on whether the Globe of Invulnerability will work or not. If the DM rules you are targeting the creature, the globe works. If the DM rules you are targeting the spell, then it doesn't work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

(Pulls out grognard beard, duct-tape-covered DMG of prior edition and a wizard robe)

All these kids complaining about counterspell have no idea how good they have it!

In 2e casting was a "no movement" action and you didn't get Dexterity added AC for that period and the spell was always lost if anyone so much as sneezed on a caster!

3e started getting all soft and mealy mouthed. Dang hippies! Spellcasting triggered AoOs, forcing a concentration check with a DC of 10+Spell level+damage dealt. Meaning 1hp of damage dealt while casting a 9th level spell required a DC20 check. Why, a caster might actually get to complete a spell when hit! Effete nonsense!

That next edition was a lot different with powers and such but those could also generate AoOs. It's like that thing between Highlander and Highlander 3, we don't like to acknowledge it existed.

5e has no AoOs, casters keep their Dexterity to AC while casting AND can move, and even a held action to attack during spellcasting do3s nothing! Only this here Counterspell does diddly or squat and just a couple classes can get it! What's with kids these days, expecting to get spells off reliably?!?

In my day, you wanted a villain to be a solo spellcaster, you pulled out a Gish so when their spells ultimately failed they could still beat people with a giant silver sword!

(Wanders off, muttering)

Laughs aside, I do wish attacks could interrupt casting. Force a save vs losing the spell at least.

Then make Mage Slayer interrupt the spell you’re reacting to, and maybe even give the martial classes features that let them interfere with casting.

Then also (kinda related) let weapons and other mundane tools damage or interfere with persistent spell effects. If I have a mechanical way to open a flood gate and wash out the area of the fight, that should at least have a chance of shutting off a wall of flame. *

I wouldn’t be down for not being able to move or defend yourself, though. D&D just isn’t that game anymore. Any game where your whole character can be “casts spells”, it shouldn’t outright suck to cast spells.

But just like Shield can block weapon attacks, weapons should have options you can take that let you block magic.

* stuff like this also opens up new spell options, like group defense force effects (so super common in fantasy), and spells that make a physical weapon do double damage to spell effects.

 

[Maxperson]

I like Counterspell too and it adds to the flavor of the game. When you think of great magic duels you cannot help think of a great wizard’s ability to preempt or counter the mage they are battling.

People are weird about this spell but it is cool and adds an element of strategy.

One on one maybe. Also when you think of those duels you aren't really thinking of counterspell. You're envisioning the fireball flying at the wizard and then him nullifying it. Counterspell is a bunch of this spell is a dud, then that spell is a dud, and maybe the counterspell itself is a dud. It's a bunch of nothing happening.

In a D&D it would be better to just have every caster scratch off all their 3rd level spell slots at the very beginning of combat and then just let the combat proceed as normal. It would be more fun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or we could just not have Legendary saves and instead do the work to design boss monsters that don't require literally wasting time and resources.

LR is a very good design element.

That would be nice.

Either way, none of that actually matters when the baddie opens up with a spell that hoses everyone because they're fresh full of unfairness on the first round.

Why would the “baddie” not have big impactful moves? Nearly all enemies get 1 fight in a whole campaign to do anything to challenge the PCs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And it shouldn't, is my point. Just no-selling three things for no reason other than the designers don't want to design a boss monster.

What is this mindset of “no-selling” being a bad thing?

Having options and features that let a character sometimes do a Neo in the hallway, and saying, “No.” is good design.

 

[Vaalingrade]

LR is a very good design element.

It's not in the same way a lot of spell design is not.

It obviates or ignores the rules to brute force a terribly inelegant solution.

Worse, it's a counter to other bad design: ie: if a single spell can totally shut down your encounter, your encounter wasn't very good, so instead of fixing the spells that shut down encounters, they give special boy monsters a way to just ignore them or waste player turns to burn off.

So you have:

Being a hard counter with no recourse.

Wasting player turns.

Not fixing problem spells.

So yeah, bad design.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not in the same way a lot of spell design is not.

It obviates or ignores the rules to brute force a terribly inelegant solution.

Worse, it's a counter to other bad design: ie: if a single spell can totally shut down your encounter, your encounter wasn't very good, so instead of fixing the spells that shut down encounters, they give special boy monsters a way to just ignore them or waste player turns to burn off.

So you have:

Being a hard counter with no recourse.

Wasting player turns.

Not fixing problem spells.

So yeah, bad design.

Not so much.

Countering an action and thus negating it is not bad design, it’s not “ignoring the rules”, it’s just allowing a character to counter actions used against them.

LR isn’t in response to bad design, certainly not to any one spell. LR allows certain spells to exist and be used (which is good) without making solo enemies into cakewalks, but spells aren’t even the only things that LR can counter that have that potential.

This frees DMs to build more of thier encounters by story rather than having to do artificial design to make the mechanics work. It allows solo monsters to just work. That’s good design.

Hard counters with no recourse are good, so long as they either:

a) are not too pervasive
or
b) everyone can do them with a fair distribution and limiters.

LR meets a), and thus is good design.

Having your move countered doesn’t waste your turn. Not every turn is going to feature a success.

It isn’t there to fix “problem” spells. It’s there to make spells that are great in a fight with 6 enemies not be broken in a fight with only 1. And they do that, especially alongside legendary actions.

So again, good design.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Countering an action and thus negating it is not bad design, it’s not “ignoring the rules”, it’s just allowing a character to counter actions used against them.

It ignores the rules as actual characters and creatures have to make saves or have defenses rather than just ignoring effects.

LR isn’t in response to bad design, certainly not to any one spell. LR allows certain spells to exist and be used (which is good) without making solo enemies into cakewalks, but spells aren’t even the only things that LR can counter that have that potential.

If you need to just say the spell doesn't work without save or roll for encounter design, then allowing that spell to exist isn't good.

This frees DMs to build more of thier encounters by story rather than having to do artificial design to make the mechanics work. It allows solo monsters to just work. That’s good design.

Which would be a plus if the game wasn't preventing story-based encounter design through the 8 encounter day, hour short rests and the legacy concept of random encounters.

Only not because solos still don't actually work because you can still just wolfpack them to death with a bunch of no-save effects, thanks to the game never having to learn about action economy because it was using lazy brute force design instead!

Hard counters with no recourse are good, so long as they either:

a) are not too pervasive
or
b) everyone can do them with a fair distribution and limiters.

LR meets a), and thus is good design.

Who gets to decide what level is 'not too pervasive'?

Having your move countered doesn’t waste your turn. Not every turn is going to feature a success.

Lack of success is not the same as having to do things you know won't matter to bait out the 3 usages of cheats.

It isn’t there to fix “problem” spells.

Only for the fact that Stunning Fist isn't a spell.

Yet.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It ignores the rules as actual characters and creatures have to make saves or have defenses rather than just ignoring effects.

That isn’t even what’s happening. It’s turning a failed roll into a success. It’s hardly the only such element in the game.

If you need to just say the spell doesn't work without save or roll for encounter design, then allowing that spell to exist isn't good.

Again, that isn’t even the case. LR is not there to make certain spells work.

Which would be a plus if the game wasn't preventing story-based encounter design through the 8 encounter day, hour short rests and the legacy concept of random encounters.

None of those prevent story based encounters, and 8 encounter days aren’t even a thing,

Only not because solos still don't actually work

Having DMd 5e regularly for nearly 10 years now, this is false. Solos work.

because you can still just wolfpack them to death with a bunch of no-save effects, thanks to the game never having to learn about action economy because it was using lazy brute force design instead!

Falling back on weak sauce personal insults toward the designers because they made the game in a way you don’t prefer just makes you look bad, not them or the game.

Who gets to decide what level is 'not too pervasive'?

Players in aggregate.
Currently, the game strongly needs more of it, in the hands of more character types, but with the additions being more situational in general.

Lack of success is not the same as having to do things you know won't matter to bait out the 3 usages of cheats.

This sentence makes no sense, getting LRd absolutely objectively is just not getting a success on your turn, and the feature isn’t a “cheat”. Calling it that is just…weird.

Only for the fact that Stunning Fist isn't a spell.

Yet.

We all know that there are more save effects the solo monster isn’t going to want used on them than that.