D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Mort]

3. Xanathars rule for identification is rubbish and works against Counterspell.

For the most part, I agree- the rules are overly harsh.

But as to counterspell interaction - I do rule that you can either identify the spell (usually no check unless it's some odd or unique spell) OR counterspell it, no time to do both.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm of the opinion
1. That it's not practical in the middle of combat to narrate a declaration of casting a spell to see if anyone counters it. When I DM I immediately declare the spell being cast or the description of the spell effects as do the players. Take the movie Willow for example where the evil Queen counterspells his pebble of petrifiction once she finds out the magic which has been unleashed.
2. DMs/Players may change spells being countered if they're not openly declared. Open cards removes this ambiguity and levels the playing field.
3. Xanathars rule for identification is rubbish and works against Counterspell.
4. Thematically it works better to know the arrow was going to hit you and you cast a Shield spell than to possibly cast Shield for nothing. We are trying to recreate awesome moments not create meh fantasy.

I agree with pretty much all this.

For part 4, though, some gamers might find it fun when Fytor VII loses his eye to a rot grub because in real life Nancy thought it would be a good idea to check the door for traps by looking 8n the keyhole.

Personally, if I wanted to experience pain and struggle instead of heroic awesomeness I'd just skip RPG night and sit in a dark room contemplating humanity.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For the most part, I agree- the rules are overly harsh.

But as to counterspell interaction - I do rule that you can either identify the spell (usually no check unless it's some odd or unique spell) OR counterspell it, no time to do both.

This seems to have been a callback for the stunningly bad Counterspell rules of 3e where you had to both identify the spell and have that exact spell on hand (or Dispel Magic in some cases) to counter.

Much like Stealth and Polymorph, WotC will be revising what should be a very simple concept until the heat death of the universe.

 

[Voadam]

For the most part, I agree- the rules are overly harsh.

But as to counterspell interaction - I do rule that you can either identify the spell (usually no check unless it's some odd or unique spell) OR counterspell it, no time to do both.

Generally what do you see as the usefulness of IDing the spell specifically as it is being cast here other than for counterspelling purposes?

 

[iserith]

I agree with pretty much all this.

For part 4, though, some gamers might find it fun when Fytor VII loses his eye to a rot grub because in real life Nancy thought it would be a good idea to check the door for traps by looking 8n the keyhole.

Personally, if I wanted to experience pain and struggle instead of heroic awesomeness I'd just skip RPG night and sit in a dark room contemplating humanity.

I'm in a game now that uses lingering injuries if you drop to 0 hit points. I was highly skeptical at first, but decided to just lean into it and it's been very fun. My character is a fighter/warlock and after sustaining a lost foot and a festering wound, he kind of went crazy with fever and his many wounds and scars began talking to him, so now his patron is a manifestation of his pain and suffering.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Generally what do you see as the usefulness of IDing the spell specifically as it is being cast here other than for counterspelling purposes?

"It's okay guys, it's a Sleep spell and therefore useless against us due to our mighty HD."

 

[Bill Zebub]

"I think counterspell and shield just makes the game more boring for everyone since it's negates someone doing something." Okay, fair enough. I can see that, even if I don't ban the spells myself.

"I think counterspell and shield are imbalanced and favor the PCs too much." I disagree, but fine.

Any other argument though - "realism," play process, timing, "gamism bad," or whatever - looks to me like post-hoc justification one or both of the above preferences. I don't buy any of it.

Yes. This is what I've been trying to say: it's fine to have preferences, and those preferences are valid. But it's both pointless and quixotic to fight the realism fight, so why go down that road?

 

[Mort]

Generally what do you see as the usefulness of IDing the spell specifically as it is being cast here other than for counterspelling purposes?

Mine is fairly specific.

I do ok describing spell effects and the like, but I want no ambiguity. Since my group are all experienced letting them know the spell being cast does that. BUT

When we were doing a set of high level adventures (15-20th level), the wizard was just a counterspelling machine. To give "a little" more challenge I ruled that going forward I would hold off on telling the exact spell until I knew whether the wizard was counterspelling or not (making the wizard have to commit to counterspell without knowing the exact effect and, as importantly, the likely level - involved).

Worked well, and I'd likely keep doing it.

 

[Mort]

"It's okay guys, it's a Sleep spell and therefore useless against us due to our mighty HD."

"wait, that baddie looks like he's upcas...zzzz." woops

 

[AnotherGuy]

Mine is fairly specific.

I do ok describing spell effects and the like, but I want no ambiguity. Since my group are all experienced letting them know the spell being cast does that. BUT

When we were doing a set of high level adventures (15-20th level), the wizard was just a counterspelling machine. To give "a little" more challenge I ruled that going forward I would hold off on telling the exact spell until I knew whether the wizard was counterspelling or not (making the wizard have to commit to counterspell without knowing the exact effect and, as importantly, the likely level - involved).

Worked well, and I'd likely keep doing it.

Does the reverse work too? As in when you want to CS the wizard's spells.