Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 7303958" data-attributes="member: 58197">Doesn't solve the problem.The problem with the new rule is not that it nerfs counterspell; frankly, counterspell could use a nerfing. The problem is that it bogs down spellcasting in play. You can't just announce your spell any more, you have to say &quot;I cast a spell, any reactions?&quot; And then if someone wants to counterspell, they have to say, &quot;I cast a spell in reaction to your spell, any reactions?&quot; And then if the original caster wants to counter-counter, they say &quot;I cast a spell in reaction to your spell that's in reaction to my spell, any reactions?&quot; And then you reveal the spells and resolve them in reverse order. Even if no one is deliberately &quot;Schrodinger's spell&quot;-cheating, by the time you unwind it all, you'll have forgotten what was originally being cast.Every other defensive reaction spell lets you know what's going on before you react. You know what AC your enemy hit when you cast shield. You know how much damage you're taking when you cast absorb elements. Unless it's dark or otherwise obscured, you know how high up you are when you cast feather fall. This may strain verisimilitude a bit, but it allows play to proceed efficiently and simply. If you have a response, you jump in and use it; everyone else does not have to change how they do things because you might have a response.(Hey, anybody know how the new rule interacts with shield, which allows you to cast it in response to being targeted by magic missile? Do you also have to cast shield blindly? Or do you get to wait until you see the missiles incoming?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 7303958, member: 58197"] Doesn't solve the problem. The problem with the new rule is not that it nerfs [I]counterspell[/I]; frankly, [i]counterspell[/i] could use a nerfing. The problem is that it bogs down spellcasting in play. You can't just announce your spell any more, you have to say "I cast a spell, any reactions?" And then if someone wants to [I]counterspell[/I], they have to say, "I cast a spell in reaction to your spell, any reactions?" And then if the original caster wants to counter-counter, they say "I cast a spell in reaction to your spell that's in reaction to my spell, any reactions?" And then you reveal the spells and resolve them in reverse order. Even if no one is deliberately "Schrodinger's spell"-cheating, by the time you unwind it all, you'll have forgotten what was originally being cast. Every other defensive reaction spell lets you know what's going on before you react. You know what AC your enemy hit when you cast [I]shield[/I]. You know how much damage you're taking when you cast [I]absorb elements[/I]. Unless it's dark or otherwise obscured, you know how high up you are when you cast [I]feather fall[/I]. This may strain verisimilitude a bit, but it allows play to proceed efficiently and simply. If you have a response, you jump in and use it; everyone else does not have to change how they do things because you [I]might[/I] have a response. (Hey, anybody know how the new rule interacts with [I]shield[/I], which allows you to cast it in response to being targeted by [I]magic missile[/I]? Do you also have to cast [I]shield[/I] blindly? Or do you get to wait until you see the [I]missiles[/I] incoming?) [/QUOTE]

Verification