The Negator; the Spell-Breaker; The Mage-Slayer...

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not involved in the playtest of 5Ed, but I have a wish: I hope 5Ed can make counter-spelling and the negation of magic (by casters and non-casters alike) effective and viable as a tactic, even to the point of being a PCs main shtick.

I've wanted this for a while, especially after playing M:tG, but have always been disappointed.

Is the any glimmer of decent anti-magic in 5Ed so far?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not involved in the playtest of 5Ed, but I have a wish: I hope 5Ed can make counter-spelling and the negation of magic (by casters and non-casters alike) effective and viable as a tactic, even to the point of being a PCs main shtick.

I've wanted this for a while, especially after playing M:tG, but have always been disappointed.

Is the any glimmer of decent anti-magic in 5Ed so far?

Remains to be seen, I think. I've been banging the drum to at least have them go back to a 1e style where spells are very much more interruptable and risky than later editions, but so far not getting much traction.

Counterspelling a la the card game could be interesting particularly in the type of campaign where everyone's a spellcaster and can share in the fun. But otherwise it runs a serious risk of having caster types tie up the game with their own game within it.

I introduced some countering abilities in my game - there's a 2nd-level wizard spell called Counterspell that, well, does just that (and to avoid counter-battles I set it up such that a counterspell specifically cannot itself be countered); and a 3rd-level spell called Arcane Denial that cuts a target off from arcane energy for a while on a failed save.

Counterspell in whatever form almost forces spells to have casting times during which they can be countered; might not be so easy in a hard-turn-based system like 3e-4e.

Lan-"a +5 wizardslayer longsword works much better"-efan

 

[Neonchameleon]

Counterspell as a standard action is almost always weak in the action economy - it trades one of your actions for a chance at negating one of theirs. You need to do more than that to make counterspelling viable.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Counterspell as a standard action is almost always weak in the action economy - it trades one of your actions for a chance at negating one of theirs. You need to do more than that to make counterspelling viable.

I think nitch that works sometimes

 

[grimslade]

Counterspelling should be a simple action for action trade. It is not an exact trade if the spell countered is a daily resource. Countering should be at-will. So countering a Magic Missile is zero sum, countering a Burning Hands is an advantage for the counterer, because it burns a resource.
Other options might be burning off an on going spell effect or ignoring a spell effect.

Maybe a benefit of a Spell School system would be opposing schools being able to counter each other with a kicker. Maybe a Necromancer can counter a Conjurer's spell and deal some necrotic damage or weaken the spell caster.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Counterspelling should be a simple action for action trade. It is not an exact trade if the spell countered is a daily resource. Countering should be at-will. So countering a Magic Missile is zero sum, countering a Burning Hands is an advantage for the counterer, because it burns a resource.
Other options might be burning off an on going spell effect or ignoring a spell effect.

I'd actually go in almost the opposite direction here - make Counterspell a daily (wizard) spell, but make it a Reaction instead of a standard action. That way, you're paying a resource price tbecause it eats up a spell slot, but you're not giving up an action.

Alternately, there could be a feat that lets you burn a higher-level spell slot (than the enemy's spell) to counterspell as a reaction. (That way you don't have to prepare a bunch of Counterspells on the off-chance you encounter a wizard.)

 

[keterys]

Downside is you can lead to a whole lot of boring

I did that once in 3e - I won initiative with my sorcerer, hasted myself, then readied counterspells. Big bad couldn't cast anything, fight became ho-hum (that is to say, we stomped it, and he couldn't do anything about it)

Shoulda seen the DM's face when he realized his casting haste on the bad guy so he could cast 2 spells a round got countered and then the bad guy's turn was basically over. Forever.

 

[Stormonu]

Counterspell as a standard action is almost always weak in the action economy - it trades one of your actions for a chance at negating one of theirs. You need to do more than that to make counterspelling viable.

Yeah, that's one thing thats bothered me. We're seeing magic detection (ala detect magic) become an at-will 0-level sort of thing, but countering magic still takes up spell slots, actions and is a 3rd level spell (so we aren't even seeing it until character level 5).

I'd like to see some form of counterspelling from level 1, but at the same time I don't want it to dominate spellcasting play. Though it would be nice to spellcasters contesting against each other in battle while the martial vs. martial fights are going on. So long as the martial characters can do something to disrupt spells as well, I think it would overall be a good system.

Perhaps if countering could be made into some sort of system like a reactionary turn undead (but for eliminating spells instead of driving off spellcasters), that might work.

 

[Harlock]

Downside is you can lead to a whole lot of boring

I did that once in 3e - I won initiative with my sorcerer, hasted myself, then readied counterspells. Big bad couldn't cast anything, fight became ho-hum (that is to say, we stomped it, and he couldn't do anything about it)

Shoulda seen the DM's face when he realized his casting haste on the bad guy so he could cast 2 spells a round got countered and then the bad guy's turn was basically over. Forever.

I think it's even worse when you, as a player, are basically stopped cold in a fight because counter spelling is too easy (read at-will). Spells are a more limited resource than sword-swinging and when it is easier to stop a more limited resource it makes for a player who feels next to useless. It's a tough balance and I hope to see it left out of the core-kernel. If there was enough interest, I'd love to see it as a module so the folks who want it can use it, however.

 

[nightwyrm]

I'm not involved in the playtest of 5Ed, but I have a wish: I hope 5Ed can make counter-spelling and the negation of magic (by casters and non-casters alike) effective and viable as a tactic, even to the point of being a PCs main shtick.

I've wanted this for a while, especially after playing M:tG, but have always been disappointed.

Is the any glimmer of decent anti-magic in 5Ed so far?

This is actually kinda funny. If you're playing MtG, you know that that WotC has powered down counterspells a whole lot in the last decade or so. It seems casual players really hates playing against them (not as much as LD though).

 

[JasonZZ]

I'm not involved in the playtest of 5Ed, but I have a wish: I hope 5Ed can make counter-spelling and the negation of magic (by casters and non-casters alike) effective and viable as a tactic, even to the point of being a PCs main shtick.

I've wanted this for a while, especially after playing M:tG, but have always been disappointed.

Is the any glimmer of decent anti-magic in 5Ed so far?

Maybe instead of a simple counterspell system (as others have said, it can lead to tedium), we should look at some kind of way for spells to interact and interfere with each other in interesting ways beyond just works/doesn't work. Say, a sleet storm spell makes aoe fire spells into short-duration fog clouds instead, or lightning effect + water effect changes the area of the lightning effect.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I left M:tG after 6th...

(still have my old cards & decks, though)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd like to see "counter spelling" be embedded into the skill portion of the game, instead of discrete spells. Something like this:

The PC wizard readies an action to counter the magic of the goblin witch doctor. The witch doctor begins to cast the spell. The wizard and witch doctor make opposed rolls to gain control of this magic. If one wins by a lot, he gets his way. For closer results (say within 5 points of a tie), the two are now locked into a fight for the magic, and the round moves on to everyone else. When the wizard's turn comes around (in Next, now immediately before the witch doctor), he can drop the counter attempt or continue it. If he continues, the witch doctor can continue the casting or abandon it for some other action (but not casting a new spell).

If the wizard grabs control of the spell, he can then turn it back onto the witch doctor or drain it for some other benefit or strangle it out entirely. If he does more than try to strangle it, though, the witch doctor gets to fight back, as the control doesn't get acted upon until next round.

So starting a spell in the vicinity of hostile casters is like pulling out a slippery hand grenade. You never really know what is going to happen.

To make it even more interesting, the opposed skill check is based on the casting stat of the initiated magic. When a cleric casts, any countering is based on Wis checks. A wizard can try, but is typically at a disadvantage countering a cleric, and vice versa.

 

[Mengu]

I don't understand this... What's a spell? How do you counter it? I mean I might have a goblin shaman throwing screaming skulls at you, or a witch coven may be tossing threefold curses around a battlefield, or an ice queen can be conjuring slates of ice under your feet, or an Aspect of Orcus could be sapping the life force out of everything in a 3 mile radius. How do you counter it? What do you counter it with?

I can see scenarios where a ritual is being cast, and a PC wizard might begin a counter chant to delay or disrupt the ritual. But that kind of stuff is where skills like arcana/religion come in handy.

Also isn't this the domain of immediate actions? Goblin Shaman tosses a screaming skull at you, if it would be a near hit, you counter it with an immdeiate action Shield so it misses. A death knight tosses a fireball at you, you counter it with an immediate action fire shield, absorbing some of the damage.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't understand this... What's a spell? How do you counter it?...

Was this directed at my post, or the topic in general? I wasn't sure from context.

 

[Kavon]

Personally, I'm not sure making Counterspell something that takes up a spell slot in and of itself is a very good idea. So some alternative way of doing it would be my prefered approach.
[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]: Couldn't exp you, so I'll just say you've got some pretty cool ideas there. Makes for some nice spellcaster dueling ^^

 

[HeinorNY]

Counterspell as a standard action is almost always weak in the action economy - it trades one of your actions for a chance at negating one of theirs. You need to do more than that to make counterspelling viable.

Except when you counterspell the spell that is gonna kill your whole party, or heal an enemy that's was almost dead, etc.

 

[Texicles]

So long as the martial characters can do something to disrupt spells as well...

I agree with this. The fiction of spell casting (especially for Wizardy-types) suggests the need for hand-waving and saying the magic words.

In my mind, grapple should be able to prevent the first and some "throat punch" type ability should be able to prevent the second. After all, you can't very well cast a spell (or at least the one you intended) by saying "Klaatu barada nikt-OOF!"

 

[Mattachine]

Counterspelling has to be either more likely to succeed or use less "actions or resources" than simply damaging the caster. That's why there was no focus on counterspelling in 1e. You simply had to hit the other caster with magic missile or something.

 

[Sunseeker]

Control magic comes in two forms:
Creative use of rules to make the game more challenging and tactical.

Obnoxious lockdown that makes the game boring and unplayable.


If D&D5e includes the former, that's great. I'd love to see some creative use of mundane and magical means to resist, counter, and otherwise impede the general nature of the magic user to become invincible.

If D&D5e includes the latter, it's likely to be a deal breaker for me. As a long-time player of MTG, I've played in far too many games where the guy with the blue-control deck whips out a turn-3 lockdown and keeps you from basically playing the game while they hit you for 2-3 points per turn, making it more efficient to fold rather than wait the 8 turns for them to get around to killing you.

IMO: the latter form of counter-magic would also seem to include a lot of the MTG equivalent of "instants" or as we know them: Immediate Interrupts. I'm okay with those in moderation, but building something around the idea of constantly interrupting your opponent on their turn just makes me bored and irritated.