Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9121558" data-attributes="member: 18">I mean it's both boring for everyone involved (particularly the onlookers) and is just a null result.Seeing it as a &quot;classic caster duel&quot; 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 &quot;Nuh uh!&quot; at each other.D&amp;D could absolutely have a badass &quot;caster duel&quot; 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 &quot;counterspell&quot; 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&amp;D doesn't really provide for this right now but it could.I'd say get rid of Counterspell and create like &quot;Beam of Opposition&quot; 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 &quot;classic caster duel&quot; mechanic. One that involves risk, is kind of exciting, features beams and booms, not just &quot;fizzle&quot; vs &quot;fizzle&quot;.Was that hard? It was not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9121558, member: 18"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification