Abjurer: one of the DM's worst nightmares

[Specter]

This is a rant and based on my experience, so it may not reflect a universal experience.

Was DMing a 4-man campaign (pally, cleric, rogue/ranger and bard) which was running pretty smoothly, when another player decided in. He said he would play a wizard, on the abjuration school.

When playtime came, I had no idea he would be so damn powerful. With his elven chain (item he could choose), he had great AC, and whenever weapon danger came around, he Shielded up. Pretty standard, huh? Except due to his ward, he recovered 2hp with every Shield. So even if he got hit, eventually he could recover HP to take the next blow. Same applied to Absorb Elements, which he would sometimes upcast just to get more HP. He could outlast the paladin in combat easily. A wizard. Meditate on that.

And then came the projected ward, which prevented KO's all around, but that was smooth compared to the counterspelling and dispelling; you get to ruin the enemy caster's turn and still get 6HP back! Amazing!

But it all paled in comparison to IMPROVED ABJURATION. A counterspell, if not upcast, would have a 50% chance of countering a level-4 spell (with 18INT). With Improved Abjuration in play, that was a 70% chance. There came a time when the Bard would inspire him more than anyone else, because even 9th-level spells got countered before they saw the light of day. One of the final bosses looked like a helpless baby.

So basically, the ways you bring down characters are through attack damage, AoE damage or spells that take them out of the game. Abjurer is the best Wizard to take care of all these things while still regaining any HP they might have lost. So DM's out there, be ready for tough stuff with these guys, and don't be afraid to put a subtle/distant sorcerer in play once in a while... :smallbiggrin:

[AttilatheYeon]

At least he wasn't a Deep Gnome. Seriously though, that's how they play, making them near the top as God Wizards.

[MaxDPSsays]

I love abjuration wizards. It's one of the characters I currently play right now. Just a couple things to note. I assume by "healing", you only mean his ward, and not actual health. One thing I like to do is cast alarm as a ritual during short rest when my shield is damaged and I don't need to use hit dice to regain health.

I don't think casting absorb elements 'just cause' is a very wise move on his part. Seems like a waste of a spell slot to me, to just gain 2 points to his ward.

As for counter spell, there are ways around that. If the caster is, say, 40 feet away, have him move 25 feet back. This puts him out of counterspell range. How does he know what he is countering? Does he counterspell every spell being cast? It's not like 3.5 in this version, where you can make a check to know what's being cast (not RAW at least). You could have a sorcer cast a cantrip, which gets countered, then quicken his good spell. Or a sorcerer could use subtle spell to avoid being countered since there's no known spell being cast (AFB at the moment). Some people don't allow that to stop the counter but it probably should. Or what about the caster countering his counter? I hate that rule with everything I have, but it's been confirmed to be legal. Did I mention that ruling makes no sense and sucks? The caster could be stealthed or invisible. Can't counter because you can't see him.

Wait till he gets his 14th level ability. Then he will make you want to cry when you through casters at the group...

[bardo]

You know you can counterspell a counterspell, right?

[Specter]

You know you can counterspell a counterspell, right?

I do, but I had already disallowed that on another campaign on grounds of it being stupid. Allowing it now would make me lose credibility.

[Theodoxus]

I throw dragons at my players when they lock down other options. A green dragon nearly wiped out the non-dwarfs in the party... then the dragon flew down and multi-attacked the dwaves, who were no longer laughing.

Your abjurer might be able to shut down a meteor swarm, but not a line of acid or a cloud of poison...

[fbelanger]

I do, but I had already disallowed that on another campaign on grounds of it being stupid. Allowing it now would make me lose credibility.

You will loose more by not.

[gfishfunk]

Can I get some more information?
- Typically, I try not to view encounters as being too easy or too hard, I try to view encounters as being interesting and uninteresting. Some players really like effectiveness, whether or not it is uninteresting. I view abjurers as uninteresting, but there are ways to make the encounters more dynamic and fun for everyone.

How many encounters do your players normally hit?
- Fewer encounters will give any wizard a noticeable bump. Fewer encounters means that a wizard can use spell slots more liberally.
- More encounters stress the PCs and their resources. Forming a pattern of having 6-8 encounters per day will make them aware that they need to conserve resources or run out.

What are your enemy groups in a typical encounter?
- Several casters can have greater output than a single abjurerer, as it east a reaction.
- Have no casters, or weak casters whose whole job is to pump out low level spells. This makes the abjurer more fun to play as it presents meaningful choice for what to counterspell.
- If he is really good in melee, start using the shove action. One melee combatant shoves him (Athletics v. Athletics or Acrobatics) and knocks him prone on a win. The second melee combatant attacks -- with advantage. Make sure that they use this tactic against others as well, though.

How do you typically position your enemies?
- If you are going up against a reoccurring enemy group, they may know about the abjurer's technique and could work to position themselves so that they cannot be seen by him prior to casting. Arcane Tricksters, Walls, etc. The trick is to use this as an obstacle and not a power bypass - give the player something strategic to do in order to use his power: like a ledge that he can climb up onto to see over the top of the wall or whatever.
- Tempt the abjurer with enemies moving in and then out (through) weapon striking range to provoke an attack of opportunity, and then have your casters pump out spells. Their reaction is already used!

Are you playing reactions correctly? Each PC only gets one per round.
- Remember that abjuration is reaction heavy, and players only get 1 reaction per round. You can counterspell (reaction), use your ward when a teammate is hit (reaction), use Shield (reaction), or do an attack of opportunity.
- The PC should be getting hit and eating through the ward pretty quickly on front lines, even with some spruced up armor. Remember that the ward can get refilled up to a certain point, not over it. (something like twice Wizard level + Int, or Wizard Level + Int?)

[Biggstick]

I do, but I had already disallowed that on another campaign on grounds of it being stupid. Allowing it now would make me lose credibility.

You're allowed to make mistakes as a DM Specter. Just when your next session begins, bring up you've had some time to think about a previous ruling and have decided to change it. The players, if they're reasonable, should be accepting of you making a change on a previous ruling based off of research and personal considerations.


You will loose more by not.

I disagree. If the players are playing in a second campaign with the same DM, they probably enjoy the DM's style and have respect for him/her. This further feeds into my thought above that the players should be reasonable enough for you to change how you rule the ability to Counterspell a Counterspell.

[Sigreid]

Agree with being willing to change rulings. While it's not frequent, it's not unheard of for me to make a ruling to keep the game moving and then at some point later say that it's impacting the game in unforeseen ways and going forward it will be handled like this....

The players sometimes ask questions, especially since we rotate DM, but it goes well most of the time.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

You know you can counterspell a counterspell, right?
Hm.... I'd thought that got in the way of the "only one spell and one cantrip per round" rule. Is it because it's a reaction and not a bonus action?

[Pex]

You're allowed to make mistakes as a DM Specter. Just when your next session begins, bring up you've had some time to think about a previous ruling and have decided to change it. The players, if they're reasonable, should be accepting of you making a change on a previous ruling based off of research and personal considerations.



I disagree. If the players are playing in a second campaign with the same DM, they probably enjoy the DM's style and have respect for him/her. This further feeds into my thought above that the players should be reasonable enough for you to change how you rule the ability to Counterspell a Counterspell.

It is bad form to introduce/take back a rule just to shut down a player who didn't do anything wrong. How fair is it all that playing time before then when PC spellcasters couldn't Counterspell Counterspell even if they wanted to but now the DM gets to do it for his NPCs because a class feature exists and a player uses it as it's intended? It's a feature, not a bug, a PC gets to do a cool thing. The Abjurer's Ward is nowhere near Wish/Simulacrum level of unintended/unforeseen shenanigans to be punished for the audacity of using it.

[Toadkiller]

I would split the difference. I think countering a counterspell is kind of cool. It brings to mind Dumbledore vs Riddle at the Ministry of Magic. But I fluff counterspell differently maybe.

Anyhow. I would reverse the ruling cause it's fun and agree to not use it, at least for a few sessions or perhaps this campaign.

Then I would put a pair of casters up against the wizard. Make him choose what to counter.

[RickAllison]

Additionally on the dueling Counterspell, it plays out that Counterspelling a Counterspell leaves a caster vulnerable, where the enemy and all their allies can cast anything without fear of retribution. There was a thread a while back that discussed the dynamics of these caster duels, and it became quite a fascinating system...

[Xetheral]

Hm.... I'd thought that got in the way of the "only one spell and one cantrip per round" rule. Is it because it's a reaction and not a bonus action?

That isn't a rule. The actual rule is that if (and only if) you cast a spell as a bonus action, you can't cast any other spells that turn except cantrips. So, if you cast a bonus action spell, then (and only then) are you unable to use counterspell as a reaction to counter another caster's counterspell. Heck, with action surge you can cast two leveled spells as actions, and use counterspell as a reaction, all in the same turn, so long as you don't also cast a spell as a bonus action.

The other side of the rule is that it applies even if your bonus action spell was itself a cantrip. So you can't cast (e.g.) Shillelagh and Flame Strike in the same round, even though that's still just one leveled spell and one cantrip.

[djreynolds]

Hurt his friends with mooks and gangs of little things, fodder.

Making it to tempting to pass up and wipe them out with big AoE spells, see if he is disciplined enough to use cantrips.

Then bring in some big bad guys.

[SillyPopeNachos]

Throw a series of low-level divinationists at the group, as they can use Portent to make sure his counterspell rolls suck, or start throwing sorcerers with subtle spell at the group, as the subtle spell metamagic makes spells immune to counterspell.

[Gastronomie]

I would generally say no to counterspelling counterspells, because it works too effective with the DM's NPCs. NPCs generally fight only once per day, so they can use up all the spell slots they want, whereas party casters have only limited resources for their adventuring day. Making Casters use up resources to just make the enemy Caster use up a more abundant resource is pretty punishing.

Anyhow: As mentioned by others, dragons can stay menacing foes for Abjuration wizards, but I don't think normal dragons will be as effective with Absorb Elements on his spell list. Perhaps throw them a Dracolich, to show the Abjuration Wizard that he isn't the only guy in the team. The Dracolich's main arsenal (necrotic breath weapon) deals plenty of damage that can't be resisted by Absorb Elements nor Counterspell, and Magical Resistance on top of Legendary Resistance and already high saving throws makes it virtually immune to save-or-suck as well (make sure to save the 3/day Resistances for only the most lethal effects).

However, the Paladin and Cleric in the party can shine against an undead monster. Here it becomes possible to give them the spotlight instead, and rather than being frustrated at a monster that seems to be designed just to counter the party, the players can feel happy as their attacks become SUPER EFFECTIVE at the boss monster.

[MrFahrenheit]

The whole counterspell thing gets pretty ludicrous when there are a ton of mages at play...
Bad guy 1 casts a blasting spell
PC wiz counter spells it
Bad guy 2 uses his reaction to counterspell the counterspell
PC bard counterspells the counterspell of the wizard's counterspell
Bad guy 3 counterspells the counterspell of bad guy 2's counterspell...

[Willie the Duck]

I'm still not clear on how this abjurer is riding roughshod over the campaign. Thus far we've heard that he
1) effectively has a lot of hp and
2) counterspells enemy spellcasters.

That's powerful, but a highly specialized character has always been able to shut down a special situation. All those spells expended means that he isn't casting sleep when the goblins come charging, or web when the slightly tougher things come calling, or <insert situation here>. Admittedly, it stinks as a DM to have to think "okay, so I could send in an enemy spellcaster, but they'd spend most of their time tying up the abjurer's actions," but that's no worse than wanting to throw undead at the party, but they have two clerics and a paladin.

I'm not even sure you're looking for suggestions, but as far as they go: instead of a (example) 10th level spellcaster as an opponent to the group, why not two 7th levels? Sure they aren't as strong each, but the abjurer can only counter one of them a round.

[Specter]

Can I get some more information?
- Typically, I try not to view encounters as being too easy or too hard, I try to view encounters as being interesting and uninteresting. Some players really like effectiveness, whether or not it is uninteresting. I view abjurers as uninteresting, but there are ways to make the encounters more dynamic and fun for everyone.

How many encounters do your players normally hit?
- Fewer encounters will give any wizard a noticeable bump. Fewer encounters means that a wizard can use spell slots more liberally.
- More encounters stress the PCs and their resources. Forming a pattern of having 6-8 encounters per day will make them aware that they need to conserve resources or run out.

What are your enemy groups in a typical encounter?
- Several casters can have greater output than a single abjurerer, as it east a reaction.
- Have no casters, or weak casters whose whole job is to pump out low level spells. This makes the abjurer more fun to play as it presents meaningful choice for what to counterspell.
- If he is really good in melee, start using the shove action. One melee combatant shoves him (Athletics v. Athletics or Acrobatics) and knocks him prone on a win. The second melee combatant attacks -- with advantage. Make sure that they use this tactic against others as well, though.

How do you typically position your enemies?
- If you are going up against a reoccurring enemy group, they may know about the abjurer's technique and could work to position themselves so that they cannot be seen by him prior to casting. Arcane Tricksters, Walls, etc. The trick is to use this as an obstacle and not a power bypass - give the player something strategic to do in order to use his power: like a ledge that he can climb up onto to see over the top of the wall or whatever.
- Tempt the abjurer with enemies moving in and then out (through) weapon striking range to provoke an attack of opportunity, and then have your casters pump out spells. Their reaction is already used!

Are you playing reactions correctly? Each PC only gets one per round.
- Remember that abjuration is reaction heavy, and players only get 1 reaction per round. You can counterspell (reaction), use your ward when a teammate is hit (reaction), use Shield (reaction), or do an attack of opportunity.
- The PC should be getting hit and eating through the ward pretty quickly on front lines, even with some spruced up armor. Remember that the ward can get refilled up to a certain point, not over it. (something like twice Wizard level + Int, or Wizard Level + Int?)

- That campaign presented from 2-3 encounters a day. Lessons learned.
- The major part of enemies were druids and beasts, so no counterspell. It was a challenge to make encounters hard but without being tailor-made to counter one player. As a player, I really hate that.
- Good call on positioning and advantage, I used little of that. Aware of how reactions work.

As for the double counterspell, we as a group agree that it's lame for a guy already casting a spell to cast another one, not to mention the infinite ability checks that grind the game to a halt. So I and the group are fine with it as is. More tactically hard encounters are on the way.

[bardo]

Hm.... I'd thought that got in the way of the "only one spell and one cantrip per round" rule. Is it because it's a reaction and not a bonus action?

You might be misunderstanding the Casting Time rules (p.202) that say if you used a bonus action to cast a spell, then you can't cast another spell on the same turn except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

There's no rule that limits how many spells you may cast in a round. The limiting factor is the action economy. Your reaction refreshes at the start of your turn. So you could potentially cast a reaction spell before your turn. Then on your turn cast a bonus action spell, cast a cantrip, action surge and cast another spell. Then after your turn cast another reaction spell. That's 5 spells in a round! You'd run out of spell slots pretty fast, so I guess that's another limiting factor, spell slots.

Back on topic, a reaction "can occur on your turn or on someone else's" (p.190), so you can momentarily interrupt your own spellcasting to counterspell somebody who is trying to counterspell you, then finish your spellcasting.

I strongly disagree with the posters calling counterspell battles "stupid" and "ludicrous", the more people jump into the counterspell action the more awesome it gets.

Disallowing counterspell battles puts a 5th level caster in position (pun intended, has to be within 60 feet) to shut down a 20th level caster.

Bardo.

[Xetheral]

Then on your turn cast a bonus action spell, cast a cantrip, action surge and cast another spell.

(Emphasis added.) Since you've cast a bonus action spell, you cannot cast any leveled spells that turn, even with action surge. You could use action surge to cast a second cantrip (or do something other than spellcasting) but the moment you use a bonus action spell you're (spell-wise) locked into nothing but cantrips that turn no matter how many actions or reactions you manage to get. Similarly, the moment you cast a leveled spell, whether with an action or a reaction, you cannot cast a bonus action spell that turn.

[bardo]

(Emphasis added.) Since you've cast a bonus action spell, you cannot cast any leveled spells that turn, even with action surge. You could use action surge to cast a second cantrip (or do something other than spellcasting) but the moment you use a bonus action spell you're (spell-wise) locked into nothing but cantrips that turn no matter how many actions or reactions you manage to get. Similarly, the moment you cast a leveled spell, whether with an action or a reaction, you cannot cast a bonus action spell that turn.

Yup, good catch. Action Surge's action is still in the same turn and would be subject to the same restriction as the normal action. EDIT: Nope. That's not how reactions work. But I think a reaction spell would never be affected because reactions happen in an isolated turn... Let me try to explain.

On my turn I cast Spiritual Weapon (a bonus action spell), so I'm restricted to cantrip 1 action spells for the rest of this turn.
EvilMage sees me casting and takes a reaction, now we're on EvilMage's turn, EvilMage casts counterspell at my Spiritual Weapon.
I see EvilMage casting and take a reaction, now we're on my turn -but it's not the SAME turn as before-, and I cast counterspell at EvilMage's counterspell.
We're back on my original turn, my Spiritual Weapon completes as usual, I can still use my action to do whatever but if I use it to cast a spell it's restricted to a cantrip 1 action as above.

At least that's the way I understand it. That reactions are isolated inside their own turns because they necessarily interrupt somebody else's turn.

Bardo.

[Xetheral]

Yup, good catch. Action Surge's action is still in the same turn and would be subject to the same restriction as the normal action. But I think a reaction spell would never be affected because reactions happen in an isolated turn... Let me try to explain.

On my turn I cast Spiritual Weapon (a bonus action spell), so I'm restricted to cantrip 1 action spells for the rest of this turn.
EvilMage sees me casting and takes a reaction, now we're on EvilMage's turn, EvilMage casts counterspell at my Spiritual Weapon.
I see EvilMage casting and take a reaction, now we're on my turn -but it's not the SAME turn as before-, and I cast counterspell at EvilMage's counterspell.
We're back on my original turn, my Spiritual Weapon completes as usual, I can still use my action to do whatever but if I use it to cast a spell it's restricted to a cantrip 1 action as above.

At least that's the way I understand it. That reactions are isolated inside their own turns because they necessarily interrupt somebody else's turn.

Bardo.

I've always interpreted reactions to take place on the same turn as their trigger. So EvilMage's counterspell in your example would be happening on the same turn you cast Spiritual Weapon, and because you've cast a bonus action spell you are ineligible to cast a leveled spell and thus cannot counterspell EvilMage's counterspell.

Here's a citation: "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's." (PHB 190.) That strongly implies that when your reaction is triggered on someone else's turn your reaction takes place on their turn.

[bardo]

I've always interpreted reactions to take place on the same turn as their trigger. So EvilMage's counterspell in your example would be happening on the same turn you cast Spiritual Weapon, and because you've cast a bonus action spell you are ineligible to cast a leveled spell and thus cannot counterspell EvilMage's counterspell.

Here's a citation: "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's." (PHB 190.) That strongly implies that when your reaction is triggered on someone else's turn your reaction takes place on their turn.

I think you're right... I looked through the PHB and in many places the way they talk about turns and reactions is consistent with your interpretation. I can take a reaction on my turn, I can take a reaction on somebody else's turn. Taking a reaction doesn't change whose turn it is.

Bardo.