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

[Sword of Spirit]

For those of you with experience, how do you think this setup would work for my (2014) game?

1) Use 2024 counterspell rules.
2) Also make a 5th-level spell that is basically the 2014 counterspell, except you always have to roll (no auto-success), but you have advantage on the roll if cast in a higher level slot than the target spell?

The purpose of 2 would be to keep a spell that is actually countering/dismantling the spell itself, since 2024 counterspell is really more disrupting the caster.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

For those of you with experience, how do you think this setup would work for my (2014) game?

1) Use 2024 counterspell rules.
2) Also make a 5th-level spell that is basically the 2014 counterspell, except you always have to roll (no auto-success), but you have advantage on the roll if cast in a higher level slot than the target spell?

The purpose of 2 would be to keep a spell that is actually countering/dismantling the spell itself, since 2024 counterspell is really more disrupting the caster.

I do not see the point of 2. It is more expensive, still unreliable.

 

[TheSword]

I really don't like the spell slot is not lost BS. It should be like a save or suck. They did a lot of this with the 2024 rules though.

Why should the spell slot be lost? What is the virtue of that?

 

[Charlaquin]

It just needs to not exist.

It has no real reason to exist. It just makes the game objectively worse.

Dispel magic is fine, but Counterspell needs to go. Just making it 10% less obnoxious isn't a solution.

I’d be up for the functionality of Counterspell being a matter of Readying a Magic action to cast Dispel Magic when an enemy casts a spell, rather than a separate spell that’s natively a reaction.

EDIT: Oh, this as an old thread… and I’ve weighed in on it before! How embarrassing lol

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’d be up for the functionality of Counterspell being a matter of Readying a Magic action to cast Dispel Magic when an enemy casts a spell, rather than a separate spell that’s natively a reaction.

EDIT: Oh, this as an old thread… and I’ve weighed in on it before! How embarrassing lol

Yes but the important thing is what you said was very reasonable!

 

[billd91]

Why should the spell slot be lost? What is the virtue of that?

I suppose it's an increasingly moot issue now that monsters aren't really using spellslots in the new DMG. But, the point of the initial caster losing the spell slot was to keep them from just trying to cast the same high level spell again their next turn. If you've burst into the BBEG's secret base and he tries to hit you with a mass suggestion, a spell that could take PCs out of the encounter for 24 hours if they fail the save, and you manage to counter it... you don't want him to just be able to try it again on his next turn because he still has that slot (because it's probably still one of his best options). You want that threat safely neutralized. And that's what the 2014 counterspell did (barring, of course, having multiple slots of that level - rare for high level spells or the enemy caster's highest level spells no matter what level they are). Leaving the target with the spell slot intact is a weaker effect. Is it a better balance than the 2014 version? Maybe - but I think it's less likely to be a dramatic clutch play in an encounter with a boss monster.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes but the important thing is what you said was very reasonable!

Thanks! To be clear, I would want this use to be able to stop a spell with an instantaneous duration if used this way, which I’d assume is not to your preference. But, I feel like if you’re using your action and your reaction and a spell slot to attempt to blank an enemy’s spell, and you have to make it to their turn without losing concentration on the Readied spell, and they still have to decide to cast a spell seeing that you’re concentrating on a Readied spell… yeah, if that all goes off successfully, I’d say you earned blanking their spell.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

How does this affect abjurers? Don’t they get to add their proficiency to counterspell and dispel checks? If it’s a save, then I guess that class ability is less useful.

I’d be up for the functionality of Counterspell being a matter of Readying a Magic action to cast Dispel Magic when an enemy casts a spell, rather than a separate spell that’s natively a reaction.

EDIT: Oh, this as an old thread… and I’ve weighed in on it before! How embarrassing lol

I agree that dispel magic cast as a reaction by readying is better than a dedicated spell

What I would like to see is certain spellcasters such as sorcerers and wizards get a class ability called ‘Counter Spell’ - the same way they get ‘Ritual’

By using Arcana, you can counter a spell and then redirect it by casting your own spell with the energy you stole. Anyone else with the same ability can counter that and add the extra spell energy to that. So the two casters can duel each other, flinging the spells back and forth, adding more and more energy to it. When someone finally fails, you end up casting a super powerful spell.

There would be a rule for critically failing to control all that power and having it blow up in your face.

Counter spell, as is, is just boring.

 

[James Gasik]

How does this affect abjurers? Don’t they get to add their proficiency to counterspell and dispel checks? If it’s a save, then I guess that class ability is less useful.


I agree that dispel magic cast as a reaction by readying is better than a dedicated spell

What I would like to see is certain spellcasters such as sorcerers and wizards get a class ability called ‘Counter Spell’ - the same way they get ‘Ritual’

By using Arcana, you can counter a spell and then redirect it by casting your own spell with the energy you stole. Anyone else with the same ability can counter that and add the extra spell energy to that. So the two casters can duel each other, flinging the spells back and forth, adding more and more energy to it. When someone finally fails, you end up casting a super powerful spell.

There would be a rule for critically failing to control all that power and having it blow up in your face.

Counter spell, as is, is just boring.

Level 10: Spell Breaker​

You always have the Counterspell and Dispel Magic spell prepared, you can cast Dispel Magic as a Bonus Action, and you can add your Proficiency Bonus to its ability check.

If you cast either of the spells with a spell slot, if the spell fails to either counter another spell or dispel a spell, you spell slot is not expended.

 

[Distracted DM]

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).

I wonder if older counterspell methods would be worth implementing. If your player really wants to counter a mages spell, they have to ready their action to do so and have an appropriate spell with which to counter. In the current rules it wouldn't work mechanically because it's a reaction to both identify a spell, and one to trigger a readied action, but that could be solved.

Granted, few people would ever counterspell but...That's how it used to be too

BUT if you're fighting a lich, or archmage, and the player's turn is spent canceling out the big bad's spell with their own... Kind of worth it?

I canceled or lessened your 20d6 fireball with my 3rd lvl fireball. Or create water. But then things get tricky.. Maybe it works better in a Roll to Cast system like DCC.