Whts up with all the hate on counterspell and dispel magic?

[Throne12]

On youtube this week theres been few videos hating on those spell. I as a DM and a player have no problem with how the spells work. As a DM I can work around them or just dont care if a spell get shut down. There are already limitations on these spells.

So do yall think these spells need more limitations or are they ok. Also make your case for or against if you like you might point something out others have over looked.

[CheddarChampion]

From a devil's advocate point of view:
You can do one big thing and maybe one small thing per turn. An enemy can just say no sometimes and your resource is spent and your action economy is done for. If an enemy could to this to a fighter or a rogue it would be seen as a big issue.
You can counterspell a counterspell cast against you which doesn't make much narrative sense. "I cast a spell while I cast a spell to cancel a spell that would cancel my spell."

[Lupine]

Careful. If you ask why people hate something, the thread explodes.

I'll say that I hate them, but I do find it annoying if I, the DM, set up a cool encounter based around some magical effect and a player negates that effect. Or if a lot of the power in a monster comes from that monster's spells, its frustrating when I spent a lot of time picking out an interesting monster and designing an encounter around it, only to have a player negate all that creature's spells.

In other words, I don't like them because players get the excuse to drop a "no u" card on what I think is an interesting encounter.

Likewise, some players don't like them, because they give the monsters an ability to waste the player's resources and their turn.

Overall, I think its because people don't like it when what they consider to be a cool action is shut down by magic.

[NaughtyTiger]

You can do one big thing and maybe one small thing per turn. An enemy can just say no sometimes and your resource is spent and your action economy is done for. If an enemy could to this to a fighter or a rogue it would be seen as a big issue.

Enemies to do that to martials all the time. Parry, shield, paralyze, freakishly high AC ....

So casters, who get the most powerful, gamebreaking and flexible abilities, whine about getting stopped once per session...


edit: speeling.

[Warwick]

"I do something cool."

"No."

I don't feel strongly about 5e D&D specifically, but many games do need to have some form of hard veto available as a counter to powerful effects. This is rarely popular with the people getting vetoed.

[Cikomyr2]

"I do something cool."

"No."

I don't feel strongly about 5e D&D specifically, but many games do need to have some form of hard veto available as a counter to powerful effects. This is rarely popular with the people getting vetoed.

You guys ever played Imperial Assault?

One of the Empire class deck is designed around limiting the cool choice available to the players. And it's usually accepted to be a powerful, but ****ty to play against.

Action denial is.. Annoying. Going "na-ha" is a sure-fire way to annoy someone.

I once pulled it on my DM who had a fireball lined up to really break the party. I counterspelled him with my Warlock, and oh man was he pissed. I can only imagine what it feels like if you are a player.

[Willie the Duck]

Enemies to that to martials all the time. Parry, shield, paralyze, freakishly high AC ....

So casters, who get the most powerful, gamebreaking and flexible abilities, whine about getting stopped once per session...

The parallel to AC is saving throws (usually). Counterspell is an additional no-card.

Regardless, whether the game does or does not do a good job of balancing casters vs. martials doesn't make counterspell a fun thing to have happen to your plans. Counterspell was disliked in 4e as well (or heck, see how well people like counterspells in Magic: the Gathering, where everyone is 'a mage').

Overall, I think counterspells are not unlike the legendary saves that high-CR monsters get -- necessary to balance out the game system as it stands, but that doesn't mean I don't get why it frustrates people.

[Segev]

I actually think you could ban counterspell entirely and it wouldn't hurt the balance of 5e. Nothing in the system hinges on it. It is a tremendous advantage when one side has it and the other does not. I actually think it feels more unfair when monsters have it because of the "one encounter" effect: players using it are using a resource they'll run out of after a few encounters. A monster using it won't run out of slots for it before the encounter is over, most likely, and even if the party wins and moves on, the next monster with it has a fresh supply, so it feels like a limitless resource for the monsters that cost no action economy and kills the players'.

[Willie the Duck]

I actually think you could ban counterspell entirely and it wouldn't hurt the balance of 5e. Nothing in the system hinges on it. It is a tremendous advantage when one side has it and the other does not. I actually think it feels more unfair when monsters have it because of the "one encounter" effect: players using it are using a resource they'll run out of after a few encounters. A monster using it won't run out of slots for it before the encounter is over, most likely, and even if the party wins and moves on, the next monster with it has a fresh supply, so it feels like a limitless resource for the monsters that cost no action economy and kills the players'.

Spellcasting/spellcaster monsters in general have that effect in general.

[sithlordnergal]

I'll be honest, I never get bothered by it, and I tend to enjoy using Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Antimagic Sphere as both a player and a DM. It adds a bit of a tactical choice for everyone. Do you spend your big stuff now, or save it? Do you try to get the enemy to cast Counterspell so your allies can use their spells, or no? Or perhaps you can get 60ft away from your target to get out of Counterspell range.

Dispel Magic and Antimagic Sphere are similar things. Its a nice way to counter big, powerful spells. Conjure Animal is ended by a single Dispel Magic. All your spells don't matter with Antimagic Sphere, so use a different tactic.

EDIT: I do know some DMs that get annoyed by their enemies being easily countered. But personally I find it fun if my players manage to counter an encounter in a way I hadn't expected. They could have used a spell, a position, ect. I always enjoy it. Sure, that should have been a difficult, dangerous encounter...but its not a big deal to me if they counter it with ease. It just means I have to refine my encounter building when they do that

[LudicSavant]

Dispel Magic isn't so awful, it's a meatier choice to decide to use an Action to get rid of a spell. Counterspell, however, is another story.

First of all, let's get something out of the way: The existence of Counterspell doesn't take casters down a peg, and it doesn't help the Caster/Martial divide. In fact, it's the opposite. You know who's good at counterspelling? Full casters. The level of spell you can cast, and the number of slots you have, is imperative for effective counterspelling (and counter-counterspelling). It's the half and one third casters that are feeling the hurt most.

You know what counterspelling really does? It mostly just makes caster duels less interesting, especially if it's between a caster that can counterspell and one that can't (such as Wizard vs Cleric). It makes less things happen, and reinforces Wizard dominance as it does so.

And it doesn't have to be this way. Plenty of games find ways to make counterplay interesting for both the person doing the countering, and the person being countered (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g). But Counterspell has a tendency to make things less interesting for both parties. That's not generally a sign of outstanding design.

[Man_Over_Game]

My issue is that Counterspell has guaranteed, no-risk value. Having Counterspell and using it makes you more valuable than an identical player who picked something else.


This is because most spells worth countering use an Action, and Counterspell uses a Reaction. Reactions are worth less than an Action, so the character equipping Counterspell is immediately ahead. If I told you you could spend 5 points to get rid of my 10, it'd be a no-brainer to the point of actually making strategy worse.

And as someone else said, action denial is an unfun element to a game. Fun ways of doing something similar is making the targeted effect more expensive or risky rather than denying it altogether. On that last note, consider how Prone makes you nearly useless, is manageable through a number of means, yet doesn't tell you you can't do anything. Everyone likes Prone as a condition for these reasons.

Prone Good.
Counterspell Bad.

[Nifft]

Monsters with counterspell are just training for fighting against monsters Legendary Resistance.

[Keravath]

I don't have any problem with either counterspell or dispel magic as either a player or a DM.

It's part of spell combat. Is the counterspell being used against a cantrip? Or something dangerous like a fireball? You never know when you decide to cast counterspell. You also don't know which level of spell slot to use. Are you trying to counter a level 2 spell or did that caster pull out a level 7 spell? In one case it is automatic, in the other DC17 check to counter it.

Using counterspell drains spell resources much more quickly for both sides. Cast spell, counterspell ... possible other counterspells ... final resolution.

I've used a counterspell to prevent a draco-lich from casting shield which allowed our paladin to hit and smite the creature. Very useful but cost me a third level slot to enable the paladin to smack the creature ... it was fun and good team work.

Finally, if the DM has created some "encounter" where the entire excitement revolves around one magical spell effect that could be countered then the DM needs to work on design skills - the problem isn't the existence of counterspell. Similarly, if the DM is looking gleeful about baking the party with a fireball and gets angry when the party counters it ... there is a problem unless the DM is just role playing the enemy caster. If a DM is happy when trying to kill PCs and gets angry when the PCs use their abilities to effectively deal with the encounter, then possibly consider a new DM since that one is way too invested in a confrontational us vs them DM style.

[Desamir]

Action denial is unpopular in general, but I think there's a specific reason why Counterspell is viewed that way.

1. Counterspell denies an action and costs a reaction. That's some of the most economical action denial in the game.
2. It trades one spell slot for another, but the resources of Team Monster are unlimited in the aggregate.
3. Counterspell is often an automatic success. Most other action denial involves a saving throw or some other uncertainty, so players feel as if they have a chance to evade it.

[sithlordnergal]

Finally, if the DM has created some "encounter" where the entire excitement revolves around one magical spell effect that could be countered then the DM needs to work on design skills - the problem isn't the existence of counterspell. Similarly, if the DM is looking gleeful about baking the party with a fireball and gets angry when the party counters it ... there is a problem unless the DM is just role playing the enemy caster. If a DM is happy when trying to kill PCs and gets angry when the PCs use their abilities to effectively deal with the encounter, then possibly consider a new DM since that one is way too invested in a confrontational us vs them DM style.

This, so much this. If a DM is upset because they built a monster that has such a glaring weakness, then the problem isn't counterspell. Their problem is encounter design. Their encounter is countered by things like Globe of Invulnerability and Antimagic Sphere. Its pretty easy to build an encounter that stops Counterspell. Have more than one caster, or have it so the creature be invisible or in heavy concealment. It requires you to see the target, break line of sight. Or step out of that 60ft range if the arena allows for it, ect.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't have any problem with either counterspell or dispel magic as either a player or a DM.

It's part of spell combat. This is how I feel as well.
No hate.

[Joe the Rat]

I think a big part of the counterspell rub is that is should feel like you are actively negating someone's action. Narrative can help - let's hear those beam-of-war and spellform shattering effects. But this is something we tend to fail on with Saving Throws. If you are undercasting, you have action - making that spell roll. The under=win over=check encourages you to cast up for an auto win.

But what if we changed the mechanism counterspell? What if it was not automatic for less than or equal to magics? DC 10+ level all the way down. It becomes less sure, but now there's no reason to ever upcast. So we need a bumper - say Advantage on your check for spells at or below level. Or we scrap the whole thing for an opposed roll - both casters are present. This takes the actual spell level out of the equation, replacing it with caster power. You could have spell level difference translate into a bonus for the higher slot, or drop that entirely and add proficiency bonuses, with Advantage for a higher slot.

Negations are still occurring, but at least now the mathy click clacks are involved universally.

You could even remove the spell entirely, and make this a piece of the spellcasting feature.

[Chauncymancer]

Is the counterspell being used against a cantrip? Or something dangerous like a fireball? You never know when you decide to cast counterspell. You also don't know which level of spell slot to use. Are you trying to counter a level 2 spell or did that caster pull out a level 7 spell?
How do you not know these things, when every player of D&D who puts their shoes on one at a time announces they are casting a spell with the sentence "I cast <Name of Spell>." Immediately telling you what spell they are casting?

My objection to counterspell and dispel magic isn't about gameplay, but theme: a blue mage wins the game by taking actions that make the number of fantastical things in the game fewer, not greater. Turning your enemy's summoned wolves into puppies? Cool. Turing your enemy's summoned wolves into nothing? Lame. Why should the wizard, the freaking wizard, be the person who contributes to the party by making the game world more mundane?

[Segev]

How do you not know these things, when every player of D&D who puts their shoes on one at a time announces they are casting a spell with the sentence "I cast <Name of Spell>." Immediately telling you what spell they are casting?

My objection to counterspell and dispel magic isn't about gameplay, but theme: a blue mage wins the game by taking actions that make the number of fantastical things in the game fewer, not greater. Turning your enemy's summoned wolves into puppies? Cool. Turing your enemy's summoned wolves into nothing? Lame. Why should the wizard, the freaking wizard, be the person who contributes to the party by making the game world more mundane?

Because the caster isn't supposed to know what spell is coming his way, I usually decide ahead of time what a caster's strategy is wrt counterspell. If they know it, it boils down to, "Am I counterspelling this round, or reserving the spell slot?" as a decision I make for them at the top of the round/on their turn. Before the PC spellcaster's turn comes up. If they're counterspelling this round, they counterspell the first thing that looks like it might be pointed their direction, usually. If they're paranoid about buffing, it might be the first thing they can counterspell at all, but usually they reserve it for things that look pointed at them. I generaly allow them to determine if they're likely targets/to be in the AoE, for example by the fact that the PC mage just pointed a wand at them. They don't know if it's a wand of smiles or of entangle, but they're countering that.

[Amdy_vill]

I think its all stupid, and an over reaction from dms not getting their way. As a dm i understand the frustration but from a balance point of view things like this are required.

[DevilMcam]

As a DM (and as a player my DM tend to do the same) I build encounters so that the PCs get to use their cool toys.

If know the wizard has counterspell, i'll make sure to fling fireballs in his face so he can counter them. But then I'll make sure some archers also turn him into pincussion when his reaction is expanded.

Sure counterspell is a big "Nope" in the face of the ennemy caster. But it Does cost à lot of resources. A lvl 3+ spellslot plus your reaction is a heavy Cost.
If you do 5 minutes adventuring days it may problematic. But if the adventure (not just the 1 encounter of the day) is built properly the counterspelling side will be the first one to get exhaused.
And even with all the spells in the world, a wizard that is out of slots is not going to pose much trouble to anyone.
I'll admit the group I play in tend to not rest a lot to avoid the clocks turning on us (and also martials are quite popular at my tables).
But slots are expensive and our wizards tend to let the fireballs fly because there is hitpoints to tank that kind of things.

[patchyman]

I actually think you could ban counterspell entirely and it wouldn't hurt the balance of 5e. Nothing in the system hinges on it. It is a tremendous advantage when one side has it and the other does not. I actually think it feels more unfair when monsters have it because of the "one encounter" effect: players using it are using a resource they'll run out of after a few encounters. A monster using it won't run out of slots for it before the encounter is over, most likely, and even if the party wins and moves on, the next monster with it has a fresh supply, so it feels like a limitless resource for the monsters that cost no action economy and kills the players'.

I tend to view it in exactly the opposite manner. Since spellcasting monsters tend to be the biggest threat (and are occasionally encountered 1 against the entire party), a counterspell against a monster shuts down the enemies for a turn. A counterspell against a player shuts down 1/4th to 1/6th of the party for a turn.

[firelistener]

I have zero issues with Detect Magic. Most characters will detect sources of magic through mundane means with zero cost like investigation anyway, so all it really adds is being able to discern the school of magic.

Counterspell requires expending a slot of the same level as the spell being nullified, so I see that as being completely fine. It pushes casters to need help from other allies when dealing with other casters, which I see as a good thing.

Edit: Misread "Dispel Magic" as "Detect Magic". I don't have any issues with it since it requires a same-leveled spell slot to guarantee success. It doesn't work on magic items or innate monster abilities, so there's plenty of ways to get around it from the DM side.

[elyktsorb]

Counterspell reminds me of dominant strategy. Why prepare other things when you can just have counterspell to shut X thing down?

Once you start using Counterspell in a campaign, everyone's always worried about it being something in every encounter with spellcasters imo.

[DevilMcam]

Counterspells (and legendaries resistances) are also VERY easy to work around.

There is at least a dozen lvl1/2 spells that would ruin your average wizard life if not counterspelled and leave him completely open for a lot worse if not.
To quote only a few:
Command,
hideous laughter
Arms of Hadar
Dissonant whispers

Have fun using counterspell on level 1 spells, or have fun not counterspelling them because these spells will screw you just right.

[NaughtyTiger]

The parallel to AC is saving throws (usually). Counterspell is an additional no-card.

Regardless, whether the game does or does not do a good job of balancing casters vs. martials doesn't make counterspell a fun thing to have happen to your plans. Counterspell was disliked in 4e as well (or heck, see how well people like counterspells in Magic: the Gathering, where everyone is 'a mage').

Overall, I think counterspells are not unlike the legendary saves that high-CR monsters get -- necessary to balance out the game system as it stands, but that doesn't mean I don't get why it frustrates people.

Not sure that saving throws are related to this discussion.

I totally understand why it frustrates casters... I explained it in my comment:

casters are spoiled, they are used to getting whatever they want. and like my niece, they get mad if you tell them no.

martials are regularly told no you can't do the one thing you want to do...




Counterspell requires expending a slot of the same level as the spell being nullified, so I see that as being completely fine. It pushes casters to need help from other allies when dealing with other casters, which I see as a good thing.

minor quibble, you can always cast it as level 3 spell, there is just a bit of risk that it would fail against a spell of a higher slot.

[Segev]

Not sure that saving throws are related to this discussion.

I totally understand why it frustrates casters... I explained it in my comment:

casters are spoiled, they are used to getting whatever they want. and like my niece, they get mad if you tell them no.

martials are regularly told no you can't do the one thing you want to do...


This kind of snide mockery of casters doesn't really do much to make your point seem accurate. It just makes you come off as bitter and dismissive. This hinders the ability to convince people even if you happen to be right.

I don't think you're right, though. By the time counterspell shows up, martials have multiple attacks per action. Yes, they CAN miss, but so too can a spellcaster's spells, or a save can be made, etc. It's actualy rather hard to deny a martial character any meaningful action, and certainly hard to do after the martial has committed to it (rather than before, enabling the martial to choose something else). Not impossible, but not common nor as easy as "I spend a reaction and a spell slot that won't matter to the players because I won't be running out before the encounter is over anyway."

[Asisreo1]

Counterspell, imo, is one of the most hype spells in the game. If you haven't houseruled, the counterspeller has no clue what they're counterspelling. And if it happens to be important, then they used it successfully. If the spellcaster is casting a lvl 0-3 spell, the counterspeller basically wasted their third level spellslot. If it's higher than a 3rd level spell, it's an ability check with no proficiency bonus to stop the spell.

As a DM, I only make the setups to the fights, I don't choreograph the fights. I'm not a director, I'm a DM. That means I don't have to build around counterspell or dispel magic, I build dope fights and see what happens.

They have a fight with an archmage and the bard dispels the mage armor? Sweet! Now the mage is more vulnerable to the fighter's attacks. The wizard counterspells the archmage's globe of invulnerability? Sick, now the archmage has to face the music.

DM's should stop being married to their own NPC's. Let the story organically flow, even if you have a specific story you'd like to tell.

[MrStabby]

At the start of one of my campaigns I sat down and thought about what all the most powerful effects in the game world would be. If I were to be a bad guy facing off against adventurers, what would I prepare for? With this in mind who would I recruit for my minions and how would I train them? I made sure to do this before I knew what anyone was playing and made sure all the players knew I was doing this.

Spells like counterspell, wall of force, shield... they all became a lot less useful though it did require me to build my campaign around it a bit. Mostly it involved a lot of bonus action spells like hex or hunter's mark. Things like a smugglers guild specialising in the arcane who were all spellcasters and a focus on encounters with multiple enemies so counterspell would only eat one enemy action out of 8.

The other really important feature was to police the adventuring day. One extra counterspell cast means one extra action in the day where that caster is reduced to throwing a cantrip. If a caster never feels the lack of spell slots then counterspell is exceptional. If it represents a genuine tradeoff and a tough decision then it is OK.

Making sure that range, line of sight and invisibility are all respected helps a bit as well.

So is it a problem? Not so much. Do I resent it? Yes. Of all the possible worlds I could weave to set my adventure in it ties my hands and drives to to a narrow subset to maintain some kind of balance. My games are better than they would be if I did not respond to counterspell but less creative and exciting than they might be if I didn't have to. Ok, it isn't just counterspell, but it it is one of the big abilities.

Dispell magic is a bit different. Firstly, and this is a personal thing, it feels more flavourful: a cleric ending a spell or a wizard disenchanting something feels right. Secondly, it is just less good - reaction is such a cheap cost. My one gripe is that dispel magic seems to eclipse remove curse a lot of the time. I would have liked a clearer demarcation between dispel magic, counterspell and remove curse in such a way that they were equally good and the choice of what to prepare is hard.

[Grod_The_Giant]

"I do something cool."

"No."

I don't feel strongly about 5e D&D specifically, but many games do need to have some form of hard veto available as a counter to powerful effects. This is rarely popular with the people getting vetoed.
Agreed. Players using Counterspell isn't cheap; successfully countering a bigger badder mage's spells feels awesome. You're using a substantial resource (a 3rd level slot) and getting a substantial reward-- it can be strong, but it's hardly overpowered. GMs have more than enough ways to make an encounter interesting.

As a GM, well... as a GM, any sort of action denial has to be used extremely carefully. A player usually only gets one turn; losing that and having to wait another 10+ minutes to do something again is frustrating. In the greater scheme of things, Counterspell is no different than Hold Person-- use it sparingly.

[NaughtyTiger]

This kind of snide mockery of casters doesn't really do much to make your point seem accurate. It just makes you come off as bitter and dismissive. This hinders the ability to convince people even if you happen to be right.

I don't think you're right, though. By the time counterspell shows up, martials have multiple attacks per action. Yes, they CAN miss, but so too can a spellcaster's spells, or a save can be made, etc. It's actualy rather hard to deny a martial character any meaningful action, and certainly hard to do after the martial has committed to it (rather than before, enabling the martial to choose something else). Not impossible, but not common nor as easy as "I spend a reaction and a spell slot that won't matter to the players because I won't be running out before the encounter is over anyway."

Counterspell shows up at 5th level.

By the time counterspell shows up:

Martials get 2 attacks per round. They have very few options other than attack vs AC. If they miss them, they do 0 damage.
Melee martials have very few options against ranged/flying foes. If the opponent is further than 20ft away (4 squares) they will prolly do 0 damage.


By the time counterspell shows up:

Casters still get "1" attack per round.
Their attack spells have riders, are usually ranged. Those suffer from 0 damage vs high AC. I don't see those used much in games.
Their save spells have riders, are usually ranged, often AoE, chosen for weakest saves, and affect (multiple targets) even if they pass the saving throw.
They also have battlefield control spells and abilities (sanctuary, instinctive charm, plant growth, walls...) that do a good job of keeping martials from using the attack options. These don't limit casters as much because they have more options than attack vs AC.


I am dismissive. Because we have already argued that the game is overtuned to casters and IME caster players do get much more angry that 3 of 5 foes passed their saving throws than the martials who miss both attacks.
Casters are much more powerful than martials in a single encounter; there should be more risk to wielding that much power.

[MaxWilson]

"I do something cool."

"No."

I don't feel strongly about 5e D&D specifically, but many games do need to have some form of hard veto available as a counter to powerful effects. This is rarely popular with the people getting vetoed.

Heh. What if Counterspell had a requirement to provide a fluff justification?

"I cast Lightning Bolt."
"I counter with a cloud of mist that grounds out the lightning."
"I counter the mist with a dry desert wind as the mist is forming, so the lightning hits you anyway."

Mechanically it's the same thing (as long as players are sufficiently creative), but maybe it would be less boring than "No."

[NaughtyTiger]

As a GM, well... as a GM, any sort of action denial has to be used extremely carefully. A player usually only gets one turn; losing that and having to wait another 10+ minutes to do something again is frustrating. In the greater scheme of things, Counterspell is no different than Hold Person-- use it sparingly.

This is a very good point. Being told no is one thing, being told no and stewing about it for 10 minutes is torture.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

From a devil's advocate point of view:
You can do one big thing and maybe one small thing per turn. An enemy can just say no sometimes and your resource is spent and your action economy is done for. If an enemy could to this to a fighter or a rogue it would be seen as a big issue.
You can counterspell a counterspell cast against you which doesn't make much narrative sense. "I cast a spell while I cast a spell to cancel a spell that would cancel my spell."

I know I'm late but had to address this. And I imagine someone else already did too.

No, your action economy isn't done for. Your spell ate their spell, taking their action too and reducing their resources by a significant bit (At least a 3rd level spell if not higher).

For narrative sense of counterspelling a counterspell. Think the Dumbledore vs Voldemort fight in Order of the Phoenix when Dumbledore in the midst of the duel pauses to push Harry back. Harry is a spell being countered. Your wizard casts his spell, shaping the magic, sees the enemy caster start to interfere and in a jerking motion grabs a thread of his magic separate from the building spell and uses it to lance the enemy counterspell, letting his main magic go through.

[SociopathFriend]

The same reason people hate Blue Magic the Gathering decks- those things specifically rely on taking agency away from the other player.

I will say part of it is the idea that Counterspell and Dispel Magic are just:
-Finger snap-
-Spell vanishes-

And so it feels really cheap. If instead there was supporting fluff about clashing wills or the like you might get significantly less hate on them.

[CheddarChampion]

No, your action economy isn't done for. Your spell ate their spell, taking their action too and reducing their resources by a significant bit (At least a 3rd level spell if not higher).

For narrative sense of counterspelling a counterspell. Think the Dumbledore vs Voldemort fight in Order of the Phoenix when Dumbledore in the midst of the duel pauses to push Harry back. Harry is a spell being countered. Your wizard casts his spell, shaping the magic, sees the enemy caster start to interfere and in a jerking motion grabs a thread of his magic separate from the building spell and uses it to lance the enemy counterspell, letting his main magic go through.

Well, counterspell is a reaction not an action.
Counterspelling after the spell has been cast, not while it is being cast, makes sense.
I'm gonna stop playing Devil's Advocate now.

[Segev]

Counterspell shows up at 5th level.

By the time counterspell shows up:

Martials get 2 attacks per round. They have very few options other than attack vs AC. If they miss them, they do 0 damage.
Melee martials have very few options against ranged/flying foes. If the opponent is further than 20ft away (4 squares) they will prolly do 0 damage.


By the time counterspell shows up:

Casters still get "1" attack per round.
Their attack spells have riders, are usually ranged. Those suffer from 0 damage vs high AC. I don't see those used much in games.
Their save spells have riders, are usually ranged, often AoE, chosen for weakest saves, and affect (multiple targets) even if they pass the saving throw.
They also have battlefield control spells and abilities (sanctuary, instinctive charm, plant growth, walls...) that do a good job of keeping martials from using the attack options. These don't limit casters as much because they have more options than attack vs AC.


I am dismissive. Because we have already argued that the game is overtuned to casters and IME caster players do get much more angry that 3 of 5 foes passed their saving throws than the martials who miss both attacks.
Casters are much more powerful than martials in a single encounter; there should be more risk to wielding that much power.
In my experience, if a martial misses even one attack, they might get very frustrated and declare "and I do NOTHING for the round. AGAIN."

It really depends on the player, not what they're playing.

[MoiMagnus]

Why the hate? First, I never really saw any hate for dispel magic, so I can't really comment on that (unless you count the abundance of magical effects coming from homebrew magical objects rather than spells when the DM doesn't want his stuff to be dispelled as "hate"). Counterspell however...

1) Timing problems for counterspells. In the presence of reactive effects like counterspells, you're forced to decompose the spellcasting of characters. The DM can't just roll dices and say "26 dmg of fireball incoming for you, you and you, DC15 Dex to half damage, THEN ..." (continuing to play monsters while trusting the Player they will not cheat on their saving throw). The DM (and conversely the player) is forced to add a significant time for the other party to react and counterspell.
2) If you homebrew counterspell so that it is far more relaxed in its timing, then it easily become a dominant strategy, which is another problem by itself (though not for all tables). If you don't homebrew counterspell, it adds a layer of bluff and counterbluff, which a lot of peoples don't like. [Especially since it relies on the bluffing capacities of players and DM, not the bluffing skills of characters].
3) Resource burning. The capacity to burn two high level spell slots per turns (Reaction + Action) is something that can cause balance problem. Especially on tables where spells slots are much less limiting than actions (like all the tables suffering from 15min adventuring day). It also adds additional possibility to make mistakes (by burning way too much spell slots in an encounters), and additional possibility to make mistakes are not great for tables with beginners. Essentially, counterspell amplify multiple already existing problems on the table.
4) Action denial. While it is a major theme of D&D (hold person, stun-like conditions, ...), you'd be surprise of the number of players and DMs that don't like at all that kind of spells and capacities and would prefer them to be very rare if not absent. (And for a DM perspective, counterspell is one of the multiple things of 5e that makes boss fights of PC team vs 1 Guy just uninteresting. Which is sad because I love boss battles.)

[NaughtyTiger]

Counterspelling after the spell has been cast, not while it is being cast, makes sense.

It is the opposite for me, both from a narrative and a mechanical perspective. Never occurred to me that someone would actually prefer it afterwards.

The spell is cast, the magically energy has already been funneled from the planes into material world/form... (slot is spent)
The counterspell (as written) has to be able to absorb/shunt/negate all of the energy, not just block or deflect it.
That should require a lot of power.
And it has to be fast... after the spell is cast, but before it does.


To me it makes much more sense, that a quick simple spell could interrupt the casting before it manages to become material.



Alternate POV.
This thread is focused on the hate/or lack of hate for Counterspell being too strong.

Was the OP instead referring to the nerfing of Counterspell in XGE? where you must identify the spell seperately as a reaction, or cast CS blind..

[Desamir]

Not sure that saving throws are related to this discussion.

Saving throws are relevant because most action denial hinges on a saving throw, while Counterspell does not. That's a big difference in feel when you're on the receiving end.

[Lupine]

Counterspell is often an automatic success. Most other action denial involves a saving throw or some other uncertainty, so players feel as if they have a chance to evade it.

Maybe have Counterspell force an Int save on whoever is casting the spell it is countering? Save DC= 10+spell level cast+int mod?

Makes counterspell less threatening and more useful for wizards, but I don't know if that's a bad thing. Also makes counterspelling legendary creatures less effective, but again, that might not be a bad thing.

[Cikomyr2]

How about a little bit of action economy balancing?

What if you need to use your turn's bonus action to setup counterspelling? It doesn't actually make it cast if you don't need it, but you can't whip it out just *anytime*

[NaughtyTiger]

Saving throws are relevant because most action denial hinges on a saving throw, while Counterspell does not. That's a big difference in feel when you're on the receiving end.

Desamir, I appreciate your response but I believe it is way out of context because Willie was contrasting Saving Throws against AC.

I think being on the receiving end of Counterspell is similar an attacker getting blocked by high AC.

If a martial attack gets stopped by high AC, she has no effect. If a caster gets stopped by easy counterspell, he has no effect. Both suck.

The differnces are:
Caster gets 1 casting per turn, and spell is a resource. Counterspell only shuts down 1 caster once, and uses a resource, if it even shows up in a session.
Martials get 2 attacks per turn, and no resource is used. AC is always on, for every attack.



How about a little bit of action economy balancing?
What if you need to use your turn's bonus action to setup counterspelling? It doesn't actually make it cast if you don't need it, but you can't whip it out just *anytime*

a reaction for a caster is already very expensive... caster can counterspell OR cast shield.

[werescythe]

I think people only whine when suddenly these spells are used on them. The DM complains if their stuff is negated and the players complain when the amazing spell combo they had is counterspelled.

I understand that feels. In one campaign we were going up against the big baddy and I had acquired various items on my dragon blood sorcerer that helped me with DPS. So I use these items and my abilities to create this amazing Lightning Bolt and my DM was so hyped up for it too... only then to laugh in my face and have him just counter spell it (the fact that this wizard/paladin/whatever) had already used three or so counter spells earlier just kind of ruined it.

So much for the rule of cool.

Still I can understand both sides of table.

[Veldrenor]

In my eyes, Dispel Magic is fine because the initial caster generally gets something out of their spell before it gets dispelled. Is it annoying to see your Conjure Animals nixed? Sure, but at least you got to use your summoned animals once before it happened. It's no worse than losing concentration due to an attack.

As both a DM and a player, I have mixed feelings about Counterspell. Sometimes it's great: when the BBEG is about to Meteor Swarm and you shut that down, it's a terrific moment for the party. Sometimes it's not: having your big, once-per-day spell stopped with a snap feels bad. Counterspell can produce fun, exciting moments, but most of the time it makes the game a whole lot less interesting.

If I get counterspelled then things are more boring because I didn't get to do the cool thing I was going to do.
If I see someone about to cast a really mean spell, I Counterspell it. There's no decision, no interaction, just *snap* done, and that's more boring than having to find other ways around whatever the mean spell was.

Unfortunately though, Counterspell is currently a necessary evil. There are a number of spells for which there's little or no other counterplay. If you don't have Counterspell, or can't cast Silence and keep the caster stuck inside it, you're going to get punked by the likes of instantaneous AoE spells, any teleportation spell, Forcecage, etc.

[Asisreo1]

Desamir, I appreciate your response but I believe it is way out of context because Willie was contrasting Saving Throws against AC.

I think being on the receiving end of Counterspell is similar an attacker getting blocked by high AC.

If a martial attack gets stopped by high AC, she has no effect. If a caster gets stopped by easy counterspell, he has no effect. Both suck.

The differnces are:
Caster gets 1 casting per turn, and spell is a resource. Counterspell only shuts down 1 caster once, and uses a resource, if it even shows up in a session.
Martials get 2 attacks per turn, and no resource is used. AC is always on, for every attack.




a reaction for a caster is already very expensive... caster can counterspell OR cast shield.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that alot of spells do absolutely nothing on a successful save. Hold spells, for instance. Power word kill literally is a waste unless you're pretty sure they're under 100hp, otherwise you spent your highest level spell to be useless for a turn.

So expending resources on nothing is how they balance spellcasters because everyone has a chance of failure. Spellcasters are strong but limited, martials are weaker but unlimited. That's just how this game has been balanced.

[Tanarii]

I strongly suspect it's because most tables seem to play that the person casting Counterspell or Dispel Magic already knows what spell they're countering/dispelling. Whether because they don't know it's a house rule, or because they do but realized it's much simpler and balanced between player/DM information to play that way.

[NaughtyTiger]

I strongly suspect it's because most tables seem to play that the person casting Counterspell or Dispel Magic already knows what spell they're countering/dispelling. Whether because they don't know it's a house rule, or because they do but realized it's much simpler and balanced between player/DM information to play that way.

It isn't a house rule, it is a ruling. The core rule books do not discuss it.

[NaughtyTiger]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that alot of spells do absolutely nothing on a successful save. Hold spells, for instance. Power word kill literally is a waste unless you're pretty sure they're under 100hp, otherwise you spent your highest level spell to be useless for a turn.
So expending resources on nothing is how they balance spellcasters because everyone has a chance of failure. Spellcasters are strong but limited, martials are weaker but unlimited. That's just how this game has been balanced.

I disagree with this analysis on 2 points:

Spell casters never run out of spells. Even their cantrips scale competitively.
Some spells risk failure doesn't mean every spell risks failure.

[Asisreo1]

I disagree with this analysis on 2 points:

Spell casters never run out of spells. Even their cantrips scale competitively.
Some spells risk failure doesn't mean every spell risks failure.


First, if they don't run out of spells, then why does it matter that it's an expended resource? It would be exactly the same as a martial missing their attacks since missing only means trying again later.

Second, every single spell in the game has a chance of failure. Legendary resistances, Nat 1's, immunity, evasion. All spells have some chance to do nothing on a turn even if you removed counterspell and I can imagine it would feel just as disappointing.

But not all actions should have a participation trophy attached anyways. Sometimes, a player will have to be held, or dominated, or killed and they're going to have to sit there and take it. That's how the game works, and it's good for it. Without harsh consequences, is there really a challenge? It's like the newer Mario games where dying doesn't mean anything versus Dark Souls where dying has you lose alot.

[NaughtyTiger]

First, if they don't run out of spells, then why does it matter that it's an expended resource? It would be exactly the same as a martial missing their attacks since missing only means trying again later.

Second, every single spell in the game has a chance of failure. Legendary resistances, Nat 1's, immunity, evasion. All spells have some chance to do nothing on a turn even if you removed counterspell and I can imagine it would feel just as disappointing.

But not all actions should have a participation trophy attached anyways. Sometimes, a player will have to be held, or dominated, or killed and they're going to have to sit there and take it. That's how the game works, and it's good for it. Without harsh consequences, is there really a challenge? It's like the newer Mario games where dying doesn't mean anything versus Dark Souls where dying has you lose alot.

after that clarification, we are in complete agreement.

[Tanarii]

It isn't a house rule, it is a ruling. The core rule books do not discuss it.Assuming because it's not specifically mentioned that you don't know what spell is being cast, therefore you do, is just a weird way of thinking.

Not mentioning it is an argument in favor of it being a house rule to automatically know what spell is being cast, not an argument against.

[Desamir]

Desamir, I appreciate your response but I believe it is way out of context because Willie was contrasting Saving Throws against AC.

My mistake! I thought you were referring to something else.


I strongly suspect it's because most tables seem to play that the person casting Counterspell or Dispel Magic already knows what spell they're countering/dispelling. Whether because they don't know it's a house rule, or because they do but realized it's much simpler and balanced between player/DM information to play that way.


It isn't a house rule, it is a ruling. The core rule books do not discuss it.


FWIW, there are rules in XGE for identifying spells as they are being cast. (Somewhat amusingly, it expends your reaction.)


Identifying a Spell

Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.

If the character perceived the casting, the spell's effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with their reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell's level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren't associated with any class when they're cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.

This Intelligence (Arcana) check represents the fact that identifying a spell requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting. This is true even for a character whose spellcasting ability is Wisdom or Charisma. Being able to cast spells doesn't by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells.

[MaxWilson]

FWIW, there are rules in XGE for identifying spells as they are being cast. (Somewhat amusingly, it expends your reaction.)

Yep, and there are rules in the DMG for additional attributes like Sanity and Honor, and rules for spellpoints, and rules for automatic success on ability checks instead of rolling. Some of these rules are more popular than others.

The Xanathar's spell identification rules are not well-thought-out and my impression is that they are not widely used.

[NaughtyTiger]

Assuming because it's not specifically mentioned that you don't know what spell is being cast, therefore you do, is just a weird way of thinking.

Not mentioning it is an argument in favor of it being a house rule to automatically know what spell is being cast, not an argument against.

I think the gist of this is:
It isn't discussed in the core rules and my interpretation is different from yours: so mine is a house rule, yours is a ruling.

I can see "A bright streak flashes from [caster's] pointing finger " and it does the exact same thing when I cast fireball with the same hand gestures, but assuming it isn't fireball is a wierd way of thinking.



FWIW, there are rules in XGE for identifying spells as they are being cast. (Somewhat amusingly, it expends your reaction.)
yeah, i know, but XGE explicitly says it ain't a core rulebook, and it's rules are optional.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've always liked the idea of removing Counterspell and then allowing you to use a readied Dispel Magic to counter an incoming spell. Maybe adding a clause that you can Hold the spell without losing it for up to 1 minute without expending your Action on following turns.

This would make countering a spell a tactical choice rather than an obvious one, and one you'd have to plan around. Since the countering effect is telegraphed, the caster being countered can plan against the incoming counter effect by casting low level spells or by having his allies focus the countering caster (as the spell is held with Concentration.

It promotes a lot of interactivity, and condensing it all into Dispel Magic means that it's always this choice available on a spell you'd already have rather than having to invest in a spell that may be suboptimal.

The (Counterspell) action may be suboptimal, but that doesn't mean that it's spell (Dispel Magic) has to be.

[Tanarii]

I think the gist of this is:
It isn't discussed in the core rules and my interpretation is different from yours: so mine is a house rule, yours is a ruling.Pretty much. I probably should have tossed in the word "logical" or "common sense" to make that clear. :smallamused:


I can see "A bright streak flashes from [caster's] pointing finger " and it does the exact same thing when I cast fireball with the same hand gestures, but assuming it isn't fireball is a wierd way of thinking.
Doesn't counterspell happen before the bright streak?

Also, speaking of things that aren't specified in the PHB and are (commonly?) assumed, nothing says S (or V) components are the same for every caster. Or even the same when the same caster casts the spell two different times.

[Asisreo1]

Pretty much. I probably should have tossed in the word "logical" or "common sense" to make that clear. :smallamused:


Doesn't counterspell happen before the bright streak?

Also, speaking of things that aren't specified in the PHB and are (commonly?) assumed, nothing says S (or V) components are the same for every caster. Or even the same when the same caster casts the spell two different times.

That's 100% correct. A wizard from Aerendyl Academy might have a structured way of manipulating the weave to cast fireball while a Light Cleric may do a prayer motion or reverent hand sway to summon a fireball. Same spells, different flavors.

Heck, a fireball needn't be orange.

[NaughtyTiger]

Pretty much. I probably should have tossed in the word "logical" or "common sense" to make that clear. :smallamused:


Doesn't counterspell happen before the bright streak?

Also, speaking of things that aren't specified in the PHB and are (commonly?) assumed, nothing says S (or V) components are the same for every caster. Or even the same when the same caster casts the spell two different times.

Counterspell happens after the triggering event, aka after the spell is cast. I believe this is RAW, and supported by spells that are interrupted before being cast don't burn the spell slot.



That's 100% correct. A wizard from Aerendyl Academy might have a structured way of manipulating the weave to cast fireball while a Light Cleric may do a prayer motion or reverent hand sway to summon a fireball. Same spells, different flavors. Heck, a fireball needn't be orange.

And it might be the same because magical physics might require the same tricks to coax and shape the effects.
How this is played out is a DM ruling.

[Tanarii]

Counterspell happens after the triggering event, aka after the spell is cast. I believe this is RAW, and supported by spells that are interrupted before being cast don't burn the spell slot.
I went and double checked, and while it's true for general reactions, the timing of counterspell is specified. It interrupts the casting.

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. PHB 228

If it wasn't until after the casting was completed, and it stopped the effect streaking toward you (or whatever) I agree there'd be no question of identification in the case of a visible spell and a knowledgeable player. But as it is they have to guess based on visual and auditory clues that they may never have seen used before, and may not match any other spell caster casting the sa,e spell.

Don't get me wrong, it's certainly easier to have the game flow be "I cast Hold Person" then "ha-HA! Counterspell Beyoncé!"

[Witty Username]

I don't get the resource argument much, at least from an RP perspective.
PC's are usually more powerful than monsters by a significant margin already. Any enemy that is convinced that it is going to die is not going to conserve resources, It is going to use them to run or fight. Also, spell slots will be between 3 and 6 used per monster( 3 rounds action and reaction castings) so them getting all their slots is not terribly relevant most of the time.

I think counter spell is important for bounded accuracy. One of the core principles of 5e is that low CR things should never become irrelevant for a high level party. Many spells at high level are encounter ending effects for low CR things (goblins vs fireball is classic), But once a mage reaches 5th level, they can annoy even arch mages with a bit of luck making for encounters that maintain relevance for longer. Even monsters that do not have counter spell can be fielded more easily if they have caster allies.

I wish dispel magic disabled magic items like in 3rd edition, but as it stands I don't thing it is too good or too bad. It can defeat multiple spells with a single casting, requires no timing restrictions, can work on spell like abilities and effects(like potions) but requires an action.

[NaughtyTiger]

I went and double checked, and while it's true for general reactions, the timing of counterspell is specified. It interrupts the casting.

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. PHB 228

If it wasn't until after the casting was completed, and it stopped the effect streaking toward you (or whatever) I agree there'd be no question of identification in the case of a visible spell and a knowledgeable player. But as it is they have to guess based on visual and auditory clues that they may never have seen used before, and may not match any other spell caster casting the sa,e spell.

Don't get me wrong, it's certainly easier to have the game flow be "I cast Hold Person" then "ha-HA! Counterspell Beyoncé!"

If the casting is interrupted, then caster doesn't lose the spell slot. I am perfectly fine with that.

[Witty Username]

I went and double checked, and while it's true for general reactions, the timing of counterspell is specified. It interrupts the casting.

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. PHB 228

If it wasn't until after the casting was completed, and it stopped the effect streaking toward you (or whatever) I agree there'd be no question of identification in the case of a visible spell and a knowledgeable player. But as it is they have to guess based on visual and auditory clues that they may never have seen used before, and may not match any other spell caster casting the sa,e spell.

Don't get me wrong, it's certainly easier to have the game flow be "I cast Hold Person" then "ha-HA! Counterspell Beyoncé!"

To add to this, if you are sick bastard, is held spells are already cast, so you can cast a spell, hold it until your target is within range, move into range and use your reaction to release the spell without reprisal.

[MaxWilson]

If the casting is interrupted, then caster doesn't lose the spell slot. I am perfectly fine with that.

Sorry, it doesn't prevent you from completing casting, it just makes your spell have no effect, so you still spend a spell slot.

[thereaper]

Ironically, counterspell can itself be counterspelled, which is interesting.

"I cast Fireball!

"No, you don't"

"Yes, I do"

At which point the spell goes through, since both parties have used their reactions (unless there are more counterspellers present, of course).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

One of the key examples people have been talking about is Fireball, which has a range of 150'. Counterspell's range is 60'. I sense a way to avoid getting Counterspelled.

Even if your spell of choice has the more typical 60' range, as long as you're okay targeting someone other than the caster, you can generally stay out of Counterspell range.

[Luccan]

Ironically, counterspell can itself be counterspelled, which is interesting.

"I cast Fireball!

"No, you don't"

"Yes, I do"

At which point the spell goes through, since both parties have used their reactions (unless there are more counterspellers present, of course).

At the risk of starting an argument, are you actually able to counterspell if you're the original caster? Does that not violate the whole "Cast 1 spell other than a cantrip on your turn" thing?

[Asisreo1]

At the risk of starting an argument, are you actually able to counterspell if you're the original caster? Does that not violate the whole "Cast 1 spell other than a cantrip on your turn" thing?
Yep. Been addressed in Sage Advice Compendium. It doesn't violate the spellcasting rule.

[Lille]

At the risk of starting an argument, are you actually able to counterspell if you're the original caster? Does that not violate the whole "Cast 1 spell other than a cantrip on your turn" thing?

That's not how the rule works. If you use a Bonus Action to cast a spell, you can't cast any other non-cantrip spells. If you don't use a Bonus Action, it doesn't matter what you cast.

[Luccan]

Could part of the problem be there's usually nothing else to do with your reaction? There's all of 5 other spells that use your reaction, all of which are more specific, and non-magical reactions are rarer still, while being less interesting to casters.

I personally don't advocate for the removal of Counterspell, at least not entirely, but I can see why some do. Dispel Magic has non-combat uses and in fact I've rarely seen it used in combat, so I think tossing it out in any way is out of the question for me.

[MrStabby]

At the risk of starting an argument, are you actually able to counterspell if you're the original caster? Does that not violate the whole "Cast 1 spell other than a cantrip on your turn" thing?

The PHB specifically gives this as an example of something you can do.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

One of the key examples people have been talking about is Fireball, which has a range of 150'. Counterspell's range is 60'. I sense a way to avoid getting Counterspelled.

Even if your spell of choice has the more typical 60' range, as long as you're okay targeting someone other than the caster, you can generally stay out of Counterspell range.

I fix this problem with my sorcerer quicken dimension door the wizard behind the enemy wizard and yells SUPRISE WIZARD!!.
And letting our wizard to be in range to counter spell the enemy wizard ready fireball(that we didn't know about).
Luckly the sorcerer and wizard are the highest AC characters in our party(21 and 23 ac) so the undead minotaurs the enemy wizard had were not a big problem.

[Drascin]

Counterspell, imo, is one of the most hype spells in the game. If you haven't houseruled, the counterspeller has no clue what they're counterspelling. And if it happens to be important, then they used it successfully. If the spellcaster is casting a lvl 0-3 spell, the counterspeller basically wasted their third level spellslot. If it's higher than a 3rd level spell, it's an ability check with no proficiency bonus to stop the spell.

Not really, is the thing. Here's a thing you learn from playing Magic, where counterspells are very common: Tempo is its own reward. Tempo is, in fact, often more valuable than resources.

The basic gist of it is, denying an action favors whoever has the most actions, and trading a lesser amount of tempo for a greater one is very often worth it. So, if the players are up on the action economy by outnumbering the enemy (say, they're fighting a big baddie and maybe an aide, rather than a mass of mooks), counterspelling, even if it's a lower level spell, is a good use of their time - you've spent a reaction (extremely little value, as the list of reaction spells worth using for most casters reads "Shield, Counterspell") to nullify an opponent's action (extremely high value, as a monster usually gets 3 to 4 actions in its entire career). This has cost you some resources, but your expensiture almost certainly means your other allies will have to spend less resources of their own (healing, dispelling, what have you), and now you're up in the action economy.

And conversely, as a player, getting counterspelled is kind of boring. You get to do one thing in a turn, so being told no for less resources than you spent to try to do a thing it's pretty frustrating because it's going to be five minutes until you get to do anything again and you even wasted your stuff to do nothing! It's the reason paladin smites can be activated on hit, or in the case of smite spells, stay on your weapon until you land a hit - so they can't just be negated for minor investment by a dude shielding or what have you. You can always fail, but you will eventually get your investment in.

It's not overpowered or anything, though admittedly it would help if there were other things to do with your reaction so a tradeoff existed, but it's kind of a weird design, where it's at the same time quite good and thus tempting for players to pick, but not actually conducive to fun encounter design as a DM option.

[Man_Over_Game]

it's kind of a weird design, where it's at the same time quite good and thus tempting for players to pick, but not actually conducive to fun encounter design as a DM option.

Kinda like stealth in that regard. Denial of action is not good game design against players for that very reason. The more you deny actions, the less game there is left to play.

Kinda off topic, but I realized this after playing MTG for years while hating the game through most of it. It suffers a similar issue, where the most effective plays are the ones that deny your opponent their ability to play, and so the game becomes worse the better the competition.

Denial shouldn't ever be a Boolean (Yes/No) but should rather force additional (and available costs) or alternate punishments. Prone, for instance, can be affordably resolved by expending half of your movement. Heck, the movement loss could be the intended effect, yet it only impairs your ability use it as effectively rather than deny it completely.

[NaughtyTiger]

Sorry, it doesn't prevent you from completing casting, it just makes your spell have no effect, so you still spend a spell slot.

You know I am referring to the rule that says if the spell is interrupted before casting then no slot is spent.
I know that rule is under the longer casting times section, but i also know that bonus actions are only discussed in combat section.

[patchyman]

It interrupts the casting.

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. PHB 228

If it wasn't until after the casting was completed, and it stopped the effect streaking toward you (or whatever) I agree there'd be no question of identification in the case of a visible spell and a knowledgeable player.

I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but if your reading is correct, a wizard can’t cast counterspell on an opponent counterspelling their spell, since they have to interrupt their own spell to do so.

[Chad.e.clark]

So, disclaimer: have not read through every response in this thread, so this may have already been brought up.

The way I have played it as a DM is as such: for anything that might affect someone else's action, it must happen after the intent has been announced but before any dice have been rolled, but always give a second or two for any reactions that may pop up. Of course, for Bardic Inspiration, Precision manuever, etc, if the ability specifies it can happen after the roll but before the effects are determined, those stay the same. Warding Flare vs Cutting words, similiar effects, but Cutting Words requires less commitment.

For spell casting, here is how I play it and encourage ayers to do the same. I also encourage spell cards for this reason.
"Enemy wizard uses the Cast a Spell action," places spell card face down in view of players.
*look around table, giving opportunity for announcements of Counterspells*

If no counterspells happen, I describe what happens and ask for saving throws as needed.

When DM'ing and getting to play as a PC, the very last thing I do is flip the card over, and say what spell was cast with the Cast a Spell action. I commit to my Action (place the spell card facedown so everyone knows this is whats coming if it is not counterspelled) before knowing what their reactions will be, they commit to their counterspell before knowing what I am doing beyond using the Cast a Spell action.

[KorvinStarmast]

When DM'ing and getting to play as a PC, the very last thing I do is flip the card over, and say what spell was cast with the Cast a Spell action. I commit to my Action (place the spell card facedown so everyone knows this is whats coming if it is not counterspelled) before knowing what their reactions will be, they commit to their counterspell before knowing what I am doing beyond using the Cast a Spell action. Nice technique. :smallcool:

[Tanarii]

If the casting is interrupted, then caster doesn't lose the spell slot. I am perfectly fine with that.


Sorry, it doesn't prevent you from completing casting, it just makes your spell have no effect, so you still spend a spell slot.


You know I am referring to the rule that says if the spell is interrupted before casting then no slot is spent.
I know that rule is under the longer casting times section, but i also know that bonus actions are only discussed in combat section.I got your reference. My 2 cents on that is ... uh, I don't have any. Both points make sense to me. Personally I've always viewed the longer casting times not losing the slot rule as a weird outlier, that starting to cast the spell should cost you your slot. But that's neither here nor there for what the rule actually says.


I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but if your reading is correct, a wizard can’t cast counterspell on an opponent counterspelling their spell, since they have to interrupt their own spell to do so.
So? Is there a rule that says you can't cast one spell "inside" another?


Nice technique. :smallcool:
That's my thinking for the "proper" way to run it too. Use spell cards, place them face down. But that's very slow. I run combat very fast. And I just blurt out spell names when casting them. Almost everyone plays that way IMX.

[Asisreo1]

Not really, is the thing. Here's a thing you learn from playing Magic, where counterspells are very common: Tempo is its own reward. Tempo is, in fact, often more valuable than resources.

The basic gist of it is, denying an action favors whoever has the most actions, and trading a lesser amount of tempo for a greater one is very often worth it. So, if the players are up on the action economy by outnumbering the enemy (say, they're fighting a big baddie and maybe an aide, rather than a mass of mooks), counterspelling, even if it's a lower level spell, is a good use of their time - you've spent a reaction (extremely little value, as the list of reaction spells worth using for most casters reads "Shield, Counterspell") to nullify an opponent's action (extremely high value, as a monster usually gets 3 to 4 actions in its entire career). This has cost you some resources, but your expensiture almost certainly means your other allies will have to spend less resources of their own (healing, dispelling, what have you), and now you're up in the action economy.

And conversely, as a player, getting counterspelled is kind of boring. You get to do one thing in a turn, so being told no for less resources than you spent to try to do a thing it's pretty frustrating because it's going to be five minutes until you get to do anything again and you even wasted your stuff to do nothing! It's the reason paladin smites can be activated on hit, or in the case of smite spells, stay on your weapon until you land a hit - so they can't just be negated for minor investment by a dude shielding or what have you. You can always fail, but you will eventually get your investment in.

It's not overpowered or anything, though admittedly it would help if there were other things to do with your reaction so a tradeoff existed, but it's kind of a weird design, where it's at the same time quite good and thus tempting for players to pick, but not actually conducive to fun encounter design as a DM option.
I don't understand how DM's can possibly complain that counterspell is a boring action when all they say is "No, you don't cast."

DM's are allowed to flavor it all they want, the weave could visibly entangle the spellcaster's spell and muddle up the arcane mixture.

It could be a black ooze surrounding the cleric that disrupts his communication with the gods. It could be a giant shield that absorbs the impact of Meteor Swarm with the Wizard's ability to hold it back equal to if they were successful in their ability checks.

It would be awesome if the wizard tried to cast fireball and the BBEG shot out a blast of ice that vaporized the bead in mid-air. Effectively, nothing happened but it looked cool.

[Segev]

Assuming because it's not specifically mentioned that you don't know what spell is being cast, therefore you do, is just a weird way of thinking.Not really; you've got the thought process wrong. The way that I would come at it is this: "It doesn't say when in the casting of the spell you have to begin counterspell. It doesn't specify when in the casting of the spell various visual aspects of it become apparent. Counterspell is a lot harder to play with if you have to first announce THAT you're casting a spell, then wait for any other players to decide if they want to counterspell it, THEN finally announce the spell you were casting. Especially if you don't write it down, spell-card style, since 'oh, um, I was totally just casting firebolt, not fireball, so haha he didn't cost me a spell slot' becomes possible."

Not in so many words, necessarily, but that's a very reasonable thought process to go through. In an edition where "rulings, not rules" is the watchphrase, considering the play-utility and playability is a key part in rulings.

It has nothing to do with first thinking, "It is never specifically said you don't know what spell is being cast, therefore you do," and everything to do with the entire way any envisioned real-at-the-table play is likely to go.

As you say, it's a lot easier to run it with the counterspeller knowing what spell is coming, due to the usual flow being "I cast polymorph to turn the ogre into a cat," as opposed to, "I cast a spell. Any reactions? No? The spell is polymorph and I'm turning the ogre into a cat."


Doesn't counterspell happen before the bright streak?Arguable, honestly. Arguable enough to fall into "rulings," anyway.


That's my thinking for the "proper" way to run it too. Use spell cards, place them face down. But that's very slow. I run combat very fast. And I just blurt out spell names when casting them. Almost everyone plays that way IMX.
As DM, knowing that I have information superiority because my players will just tell me what spells they're casting as they declare their intent to cast a spell, I try to map out my NPCs with counterspell's strategies and tactics on their turns.

The mage the PCs fought who had counterspell was going to cast it on the first thing that the guys he was ambushing with his thug minions tried to cast. When he saw there was an obvious wizard, he amended that to "the first thing the wizard tries to cast." Without even really thinking tactically; he didn't know there was a ranger and a warlock just by appearance, while the wizard was obvious, so it was the wizard he was watching for spellcasting. When the wizard leveled a wand at him, the mage counterspelled it. I knew, because the player told me, that it was entangle being countered, but the mage didn't. And he'd have countered it if it had turned out to have been a Wand of Smiles. (I'd have had it work, too, despite it technically not being a spell, because if he can mistake it for a spell and it's coming from a wand and it's costing him a spell slot, darn it, I'm going to let it work.)

Now that the wizard has gotten ahold of counterspell, I'll be trying to remember to play it as, "NPC is casting a spell; any reactions? No? Then it's cone of cold." And trusting myself not to cheat by switching it to a cantrip if it's counterspelled. I do'nt expect my players would, either, but I understand why it's a valid concern.




Now, for a really funny thought: Are there any spells other than counterspell with a "reaction" casting time? I know at least one!

Imagine the following:

<Blue Team Wizard> I start casting a spell! Any reactions?
<Red Team Wizard> As a reaction, I start casting a spell.
<Blue Team Wizard> Hah! Alright, then, as a reaction, I start casting another spell!
<Red Team Party> No further reactions from our side.
<Blue Team Wizard> My reaction-spell is counterspell, so my first spell - Tasha's hideous laughter - goes off! I need a save! Thought you could counterspell it, didn't you!
<Red Team Wizard> *falling over laughing as he fails his save* No--haha--but I did think I could trick you int--heeheheheee--into waste--hah!--wasting counterspell on my--hahahahaha!--feather fall!


Edit to add: This gets nastier if there are any reaction-cantrips. I don't know if there are. Here's a proposal which may or may not be overpowered:

False Counterspell
Illusion cantrip
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 ft. start to cast a spell
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: see text
Casting this spell looks like you're casting counterspell, and, indeed, even makes it look successful, as the effects of the spell seem delayed for a fraction of a second, just long enough for people to breathe a sigh of relief or curse their luck. This has no mechanical effect.


For a more balanced version, it could be a bonus action cantrip that makes it so that you LOOK like you cast counterspell against any spell cast until the start of your next turn.

[ZRN]

it's at the same time quite good and thus tempting for players to pick, but not actually conducive to fun encounter design as a DM option.

I think it adds some tactical depth, in that a lot of spells have 100% success rate EXCEPT when they're counterspelled. (Buffs, teleportation, etc.) You don't even need to USE it that often - just having the PCs know that there's a chance their big important spell won't succeed means that they'll have to create more flexibly tactical approaches.

[Anymage]

Now, for a really funny thought: Are there any spells other than counterspell with a "reaction" casting time? I know at least one!

Quibble: Spells with reaction casting times, and indeed all reactions possible, have a trigger as to when you can use them. If the trigger condition isn't met, you can't cast the spell. Otherwise bluffing out counterspells would be a good tactic, but see below.


I think it adds some tactical depth, in that a lot of spells have 100% success rate EXCEPT when they're counterspelled. (Buffs, teleportation, etc.) You don't even need to USE it that often - just having the PCs know that there's a chance their big important spell won't succeed means that they'll have to create more flexibly tactical approaches.

That's an argument for some counterspell effects to exist, not necessarily the current version.

The current version creates a bluffing minigame that exists only among the DM and the players of whatever characters picked Counterspell, that relies more on player skill than character potential. The first part is bad because if you're going to make such an involved minigame part of your rules, you want it to be something everybody gets in on instead of just one subset of players and it's definitely bad form to make it so focal to one spell pick. The second part, lots has been said already about how my character should not be limited by my real-life capabilities.

And most importantly, if Counterspell and similar effects are so essential as a balance against magic, it reminds me of how OP spells in 3.5 were "balanced" because other spells countered their effects. You still needed casters to have the right preparations in place, and those casters needed players who read enough sourcebooks and/or message boards to be properly swaddled in protections. Given that 5e has given mundanes an effective Dispel Magic alternative in "force the caster to make concentration saves" (and limited the number of protective buffs available through concentration's general reduction of buff stacking), people in favor Counterspell as a caster minigame feel like throwbacks.

[MaxWilson]

The current version creates a bluffing minigame that exists only among the DM and the players of whatever characters picked Counterspell, that relies more on player skill than character potential. The first part is bad because if you're going to make such an involved minigame part of your rules, you want it to be something everybody gets in on instead of just one subset of players and it's definitely bad form to make it so focal to one spell pick. The second part, lots has been said already about how my character should not be limited by my real-life capabilities.

Your character is always limited by your real-life capabilities at playing the game. If you're the kind of player who blows his 9th level spell slots on a Fireball IX during the first encounter in the dungeon, I'm sorry, but you're going to struggle more than players with more skill and patience.

The only way to change that is to make the game so easy that everybody always wins all the time, and that would be horrible.

[Aaedimus]

This gave me a really interesting idea that I think I'm going to make a post about: Tell me what you think of this homebrew rule thematically and mechanically

Counterspell is no longer a spell, it is a held action (burning up your action and reaction)

-(you can possibly see when the NPC's are readying to counter you and vice versa)

you start by declaring your counterspell.

The caster begins their spell and you enter a contested struggle of power, the counter-speller makes a straight intelligence check, contested by the caster's spellcasting ability plus the spell level.

If the counterspeller is successful in the contested check, they must sacrifice a spell slot of at least equal level to the one being countered, if unsuccessful no spell slots are wasted (but their turn was). The original caster can choose to spend spell slots to infuse power into their spell and overwhelm the counterspell (adding the level of slots sacrificed to the roll). The counterspeller now is aware of the nature of the spell being cast. The caster and counter-speller have found themselves locked in a battle of power, until one of the two give in because the spell is not worth the sacrifice.

Rather than canceling the spell, conversely when announcing the held action the counterspeller can choose to attempt to cast a specific spell, which will allow them to add their proficiency bonus to the contested check. Upon a success, rather than entering a contest of spell slots, both spells occur to some extent, but are changed in some way decided by the DM. Casting a damaging spell at someone attempting to teleport might throw off their direction and create a mishap without doing full damage. Casting a darkness spell might cause magic missiles to lose their auto-hit quality. You still get to cast the spell, but get additional effects based on how the DM imagines they would interact.

I didn't really try to balance it out, but if you were to adopt something similar, how would you tweak it?

[Democratus]

Now, for a really funny thought: Are there any spells other than counterspell with a "reaction" casting time? I know at least one!

Imagine the following:

<Blue Team Wizard> I start casting a spell! Any reactions?
<Red Team Wizard> As a reaction, I start casting a spell.
<Blue Team Wizard> Hah! Alright, then, as a reaction, I start casting another spell!
<Red Team Party> No further reactions from our side.
<Blue Team Wizard> My reaction-spell is counterspell, so my first spell - Tasha's hideous laughter - goes off! I need a save! Thought you could counterspell it, didn't you!
<Red Team Wizard> *falling over laughing as he fails his save* No--haha--but I did think I could trick you int--heeheheheee--into waste--hah!--wasting counterspell on my--hahahahaha!--feather fall!



Sadly, you can only cast Feather Fall as a reaction to someone within 60' of you falling. So the scene above wouldn't work.

[Yakk]

A counterspell I'm playing with for my game:

Roll a casting ability check against a DC equal 5 times the level of the spell being cast.

At Higher Levels: Add an additional +4 to your ability check for each slow level higher than 3 used.

A 20 casting stat mage using counter spell on a 3rd level spell needs to roll a 10+.

Each higher level the spell is makes the "even roll" 1 worse. So by 9th level, a 9th level slot being used to counter a 9th level spell needs a 16+. This is intended.

Higher level spells are much, much harder; you can sometimes manage 1 level higher, but 2 is nearly impossible unless you are a bard or abjuration wizard.

This also removes the "counterspell the counterspell" null game; it becomes a double-roll off, where either can fail, unless one side is burning much more magical power.

This also makes warlocks both better and worse at counterspelling. Better, because their higher level slot than 3rd gets more utility countering lower level spells; worse, because they are burning a slot at "maybe nothing".

[Segev]

This gave me a really interesting idea that I think I'm going to make a post about: Tell me what you think of this homebrew rule thematically and mechanically

Counterspell is no longer a spell, it is a held action (burning up your action and reaction)

-(you can possibly see when the NPC's are readying to counter you and vice versa)

you start by declaring your counterspell.

The caster begins their spell and you enter a contested struggle of power, the counter-speller makes a straight intelligence check, contested by the caster's spellcasting ability plus the spell level.

If the counterspeller is successful in the contested check, they must sacrifice a spell slot of at least equal level to the one being countered, if unsuccessful no spell slots are wasted (but their turn was). The original caster can choose to spend spell slots to infuse power into their spell and overwhelm the counterspell (adding the level of slots sacrificed to the roll). The counterspeller now is aware of the nature of the spell being cast. The caster and counter-speller have found themselves locked in a battle of power, until one of the two give in because the spell is not worth the sacrifice.

Rather than canceling the spell, conversely when announcing the held action the counterspeller can choose to attempt to cast a specific spell, which will allow them to add their proficiency bonus to the contested check. Upon a success, rather than entering a contest of spell slots, both spells occur to some extent, but are changed in some way decided by the DM. Casting a damaging spell at someone attempting to teleport might throw off their direction and create a mishap without doing full damage. Casting a darkness spell might cause magic missiles to lose their auto-hit quality. You still get to cast the spell, but get additional effects based on how the DM imagines they would interact.

I didn't really try to balance it out, but if you were to adopt something similar, how would you tweak it?
This doesn't do anything more than counterspell already does, and in fact lessens it, while greatly increasing the cost (see the bolded part). 3.5 handled it roughly this way: counterspelling was something you could do by readying an action to counterspell with the same spell that you expect the enemy to cast, or with dispel magic. HArdly anybody ever used it, because eating up your action to maybe negate the enemy action is almost never a good idea, and there are better ways to do THAT, too (hold person and similar disabling spells).

This fix would negate the power of counterspell, but would do it to the point that nobody would use it, I suspect.


The point about it being a bluffing minigame that involves too few players and can make one particular spell pick feel mandatory is a good one.

It's much less of a bluffing minigame if you play it the way many likely do, with the information flow being the same as normal in gameplay. That is, "I cast Evard's spiked tentacles of forced intrusion!" "Oh, no you don't, I counterspell it!" But then it's also much, much more powerful than apparently intended, since you CAN'T bluff it out with a cantrip, for example.

I can think of two ways to try to alter this and maybe make it more engaging or at least less of an obvious pick. Both ways involve assuming the counterspell is only cast after the first player announces what spell he's casting, to go with normal game flow and to grant that bit of power to it.

The simple way would be to make it cost just a little bit more in terms of opportunity. Add the sentence, "On your next turn, you cannot cast any spells other than cantrips," to counterspell. This essentially makes it force in the same restriction as casting any bonus-action spell. It's still a great pick for gishes (who'll just attack normally or with cantrip support), but makes full casters (other than Abjurors) have to think twice about it for action economy reasons.
The more involved way involves seriously changing its dynamics. It becomes a bidding war. When you cast counterspell, you cast it with a spell slot of at least the level of the target spell (or 3rd level, the level of counterspell; no option to cast a spell slot lower than the target spell's and try a check to oppose it). Your opponent then has the option to spend another spell slot of at least the level of slot you used to try to force it through anyway. If he does, you get the option to spend another spell slot of at least the level of slot your opponent used to back it up in order to squelch it. This turns it into a "beam-o-war" bidding contest.

[LordCdrMilitant]

On youtube this week theres been few videos hating on those spell. I as a DM and a player have no problem with how the spells work. As a DM I can work around them or just dont care if a spell get shut down. There are already limitations on these spells.

So do yall think these spells need more limitations or are they ok. Also make your case for or against if you like you might point something out others have over looked.

As a player, it feels inefficient to trade a 3rd level spell slot for an enemy 3rd level or less spell slot, especially when there are options to help in passing the save which either persists for more than one spell attempt on the enemy's part or are "cheaper", as well as options that just shut down all their casting in general instead of just one spell, which are also cheaper.

There just feels like there's better ways to stop an enemy spellcaster in their tracks.

That said, it feels a lot more valid this edition than in previous ones, since I don't have to predict the spell they're going to cast and can do so as a reaction, so there's some action economy benefits to it.

[MaxWilson]

Now, for a really funny thought: Are there any spells other than counterspell with a "reaction" casting time? I know at least one!

Imagine the following:

<Blue Team Wizard> I start casting a spell! Any reactions?
<Red Team Wizard> As a reaction, I start casting a spell.
<Blue Team Wizard> Hah! Alright, then, as a reaction, I start casting another spell!
<Red Team Party> No further reactions from our side.
<Blue Team Wizard> My reaction-spell is counterspell, so my first spell - Tasha's hideous laughter - goes off! I need a save! Thought you could counterspell it, didn't you!
<Red Team Wizard> *falling over laughing as he fails his save* No--haha--but I did think I could trick you int--heeheheheee--into waste--hah!--wasting counterspell on my--hahahahaha!--feather fall!

Edit to add: This gets nastier if there are any reaction-cantrips. I don't know if there are. Here's a proposal which may or may not be overpowered:

Reaction cantrips may not be needed--unless the wizard has some kind of ability to sense magic directly, it's more like:

<Blue Team Wizard> I start saying magic words and waving my hands around! Any reactions?
<Red Team Wizard> As a reaction, I start gesturing, but I don't say any magic words.
<Blue Team Wizard> Hah! Alright, then, as a reaction, I start some additional gestures!
<Red Team Party> No further reactions from our side.
<Blue Team Wizard> My reaction-spell is counterspell, so my first spell - Tasha's hideous laughter - goes off! I need a save! Thought you could counterspell it, didn't you!
<Red Team Wizard> *falling over laughing as he fails his save* No--haha--but I did think I could trick you int--heeheheheee--into waste--hah!--wasting counterspell on my--hahahahaha!--meaningless gestures that only resemble spellcasting!

[Nifft]

Sadly, you can only cast Feather Fall as a reaction to someone within 60' of you falling. So the scene above wouldn't work.

The other guy totally fell for it, though.

[Democratus]

Reaction cantrips may not be needed--unless the wizard has some kind of ability to sense magic directly, it's more like:

<Blue Team Wizard> I start saying magic words and waving my hands around! Any reactions?
<Red Team Wizard> As a reaction, I start gesturing, but I don't say any magic words.
<Blue Team Wizard> Hah! Alright, then, as a reaction, I start some additional gestures!
<Red Team Party> No further reactions from our side.
<Blue Team Wizard> My reaction-spell is counterspell, so my first spell - Tasha's hideous laughter - goes off! I need a save! Thought you could counterspell it, didn't you!
<Red Team Wizard> *falling over laughing as he fails his save* No--haha--but I did think I could trick you int--heeheheheee--into waste--hah!--wasting counterspell on my--hahahahaha!--meaningless gestures that only resemble spellcasting!

You can only use Counterspell as a reaction when you see a spell being cast. So if someone is just gesturing, you don't get the reaction.

[Cikomyr2]

You can only use Counterspell as a reaction when you see a spell being cast. So if someone is just gesturing, you don't get the reaction.

Wizard : I want to design a new spell
DM: sure. What do you want it to do?
Wizard : well, it's a new cantrip
Dm: oh, ok. That's tricky. Not too powerful?
Wizard: I want it to do nothing. Literally, nothing.
Dm:... Then what's the point of..
Wizard: and it can be cast as a reaction

[Democratus]

Wizard : I want to design a new spell
DM: sure. What do you want it to do?
Wizard : well, it's a new cantrip
Dm: oh, ok. That's tricky. Not too powerful?
Wizard: I want it to do nothing. Literally, nothing.
Dm:... Then what's the point of..
Wizard: and it can be cast as a reaction

Now that is totally legit. :smallbiggrin:

So long as you specify that the spell can be cast as a reaction to another spell. Reaction spells always must specify the thing to which they react.

[Segev]

Wizard : I want to design a new spell
DM: sure. What do you want it to do?
Wizard : well, it's a new cantrip
Dm: oh, ok. That's tricky. Not too powerful?
Wizard: I want it to do nothing. Literally, nothing.
Dm:... Then what's the point of..
Wizard: and it can be cast as a reaction


Now that is totally legit. :smallbiggrin:

So long as you specify that the spell can be cast as a reaction to another spell. Reaction spells always must specify the thing to which they react.

I even named it!



Edit to add: This gets nastier if there are any reaction-cantrips. I don't know if there are. Here's a proposal which may or may not be overpowered:
False Counterspell
Illusion cantrip
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 ft. start to cast a spell
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: see text
Casting this spell looks like you're casting counterspell, and, indeed, even makes it look successful, as the effects of the spell seem delayed for a fraction of a second, just long enough for people to breathe a sigh of relief or curse their luck. This has no mechanical effect.

For a more balanced version, it could be a bonus action cantrip that makes it so that you LOOK like you cast counterspell against any spell cast until the start of your next turn.
...and now I notice I edit-failed, and it says it's 1st level. Fixing it here and in the original as I edit now. :smallsigh:

[Democratus]

I even named it!


...and now I notice I edit-failed, and it says it's 1st level. Fixing it here and in the original as I edit now. :smallsigh:

Haha! Was going to say, it totally isn't OP for a 1st level spell.

I like it! Especially the "dramatic pause".

[JackPhoenix]

I generaly allow them to determine if they're likely targets/to be in the AoE, for example by the fact that the PC mage just pointed a wand at them. They don't know if it's a wand of smiles or of entangle, but they're countering that.

You can't Counterspell a wand. Wand of Smiles does not cast a spell, and Wand of Entangle does not have a components that would indicate a spell is being cast.


This is a very good point. Being told no is one thing, being told no and stewing about it for 10 minutes is torture.

If your turns take 10 minutes or more, your game has worse problems than Counterspell. There's no difference between the caster casting a spell and having that spell countered (which there are multiple ways of avoiding, by the way) and a martial making an attack and missing due to Shield.

[Anymage]

If your turns take 10 minutes or more, your game has worse problems than Counterspell.

It isn't about one player's turn taking that long. It's about everybody including the monsters taking a while before it comes back around to you.


There's no difference between the caster casting a spell and having that spell countered (which there are multiple ways of avoiding, by the way) and a martial making an attack and missing due to Shield.

By the time Counterspell comes on line, the martial has multiple attacks. They have options.

Casters, barring Fighter dips or twinning shenanigans (and the latter limit your extra to a cantrip) get one spell per turn. You don't get a second go at anything.

[Veldrenor]

There are a number of suggestions in this thread for weakening Counterspell. My question for such suggestions is this: what counterplay would you add to fill the gap that results from de-powering it? There are a number of spells that are a really bad time for the party if they happen. Even Dimension Door can be a catastrophe; any caster who has it can flee to come back at you again and again and again. Weakening Counterspell makes all those other problems stronger. So, what would you add to give players a way to interact with such spells? What could you add to make it more interesting to combat those spells, and make it more interesting for casters who then have to work around that addition?

[JackPhoenix]

By the time Counterspell comes on line, the martial has multiple attacks. They have options.

Options like "miss again, because the +5 AC is still here"?


Casters, barring Fighter dips or twinning shenanigans (and the latter limit your extra to a cantrip) get one spell per turn. You don't get a second go at anything.

Shame there aren't things beyond casting spellcasters can do on their turn, or, you know, ways to avoid being counterspelled in the first place.

[Segev]

You can't Counterspell a wand. Wand of Smiles does not cast a spell, and Wand of Entangle does not have a components that would indicate a spell is being cast.



If your turns take 10 minutes or more, your game has worse problems than Counterspell. There's no difference between the caster casting a spell and having that spell countered (which there are multiple ways of avoiding, by the way) and a martial making an attack and missing due to Shield.
While you’re probably right about the wand of smiles, the wand of entangle does not say you cast the spell without components. Just that you may cast the spell.

[Nagog]

I don't see a problem with it.

If there is a problem with it, is there also a problem with Shield? If my fighter runs up to the spellcaster to shut them down and they cast Shield to defend themselves and bring their AC up to unhittable levels (Clerics and Warlocks are easily capable of this), then I've pretty much wasted my full turn. All of my attack action (however many attacks that is) and any bonus action attack I have are done for. That's terrible and I've wasted my time and movement to get to this place.

(meanwhile) How dare they expend a 3rd level spell to negate my Hypnotic Pattern! I guess I'll just quicken a Fire Bolt and get a full round of damage in with my bonus action, but now I've wasted sorcery points and a 3rd level spell slot! This sucks, that spell should not exist because it means I can be defended against!

See the difference?

1. Spellcasters and Gish builds are far more likely to have Bonus Action options, and on top of that, Counterspell doesn't shut you down for a full round, just one spell. Shield and decent AC to start have the capacity to shut down a martial for their whole turn.

2. Spells have the capacity to literally end the encounter. Recently in a large scale BBEG fight (the BBEG had a character sheet many levels above everybody else and was played by a friend of the DM), the BBEG cast Delayed Blast Fireball, set to detonate on casting. Nobody in the party was above 30 hp. The DM chose to let the 20th level NPC cast a 7th level Counterspell so their friend didn't TPK during the final session of the campaign, and it worked. During that same fight, that same BBEG counter spelled my Eldritch Blast that was proccing tons of damage due to other riding effects. A decent counterspell, but one that I definitely won the resource tradeoff. That's how you use resource tradeoffs like Counterspell. Investing their lower level spell slots if they think they can make the check until they run out, or set up powerful combinations that trigger on low investment spells. Magic Missile+Hex or Hunter's mark is a good one, another is Arcana Cleric Potent SCAGtrips, or a decent Eldritch Blast build.

Counterspell is what makes a Mage v. Mage battle an actual battle instead of a skill check for Initiative deciding who gets their 9th level Nova out first. Fight smart, like a mage would.

[Asisreo1]

While you’re probably right about the wand of smiles, the wand of entangle does not say you cast the spell without components. Just that you may cast the spell.


Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise.

The DMG page 141 says that all spells cast through magic items require no components unless stated. I know, pretty good right?

[ButzSanchez]

Counterspell isn't problematic to me unless you're running a PvP scenario. In such cases, as others here have shown, it reinforces the dominance of pure casters and makes all other basically incapable of addressing them on equal terms. But in PvE situations (most games, I'd imagine), I don't see an issue with it. One, it costs your reaction, and you can't have more than one. If more than one creature they're facing can cast spells, it only slows them down so much. Two, creatures typically have near unlimited spellcasting. Some can only cast certain spells so many times a day, others, especially at higher levels, don't have such limitations. All a player is really doing when they use Counterspell on a creature is buying time for their allies to hopefully finish the thing off and spending a resource to do so.

As for using it against players, again, even creatures only have one reaction to use. If a party has multiple casters (and realistically, they will, as most classes can cast spells) then the enemy can get one counter off before the party starts to strategize against that. Forcing the enemy to use their reaction on a Counterspell ensures melee combatants can dive in and out of combat at no penalty, and allows other spellcasters to follow up with whatever they please.

There are plenty of spells that manipulate action economy. Honestly I'd say the spell Confusion is far worse since it has a big chance to affect multiple targets and screw them over royal, but even that has balance given there are multiple opportunities to avoid it's effects. All in all though, action economy is king in encounters, and anything that affects it should be considered carefully. In my opinion, this makes such effects worthwhile in use, since they need careful strategic implementation in most cases and that makes players and the DM thoughtful regarding encounters.

[Tanarii]

I
If there is a problem with it, is there also a problem with Shield? If my fighter runs up to the spellcaster to shut them down and they cast Shield to defend themselves and bring their AC up to unhittable levels (Clerics and Warlocks are easily capable of this), then I've pretty much wasted my full turn. All of my attack action (however many attacks that is) and any bonus action attack I have are done for. That's terrible and I've wasted my time and movement to get to this place.
Wait, what. You mean EKs, right? Because how often are you fighting a cleric with Shield? And warlock with good AC? For that matter how often are you fighting an EK as a PC?

[Segev]

By definition, shield can’t make your AC literally unhittable. It can reduce your chances to as low as 5%. And “I’ll just quicken a fire bolt?” How is a nonsorcerer doing that? What option that any other primary caster has for their bonus action are they overlooking?

If you want to argue that there is parity, great, but you have to actually demonstrate parity and not exaggerate one side’s problems and give solutions to the other that it doesn’t really have.


The DMG page 141 says that all spells cast through magic items require no components unless stated. I know, pretty good right?
Neat! I had missed that.

Now, can you show me where counterspell says you can’t use it if the spell is cast without components? All it says is that you see the creature casting. Casting without components doesn’t make the creature invisible nor render it “not casting.”

[Aussiehams]

I haven't read all 4 pages yet, but I have no problem with counterspell.
Do the people that don't like counterspell have an issue with Shield? It is almost Counterspell against martials (and is even better if used against MM), at a much lower spell slot.

[MrStabby]

There are a number of suggestions in this thread for weakening Counterspell. My question for such suggestions is this: what counterplay would you add to fill the gap that results from de-powering it? There are a number of spells that are a really bad time for the party if they happen. Even Dimension Door can be a catastrophe; any caster who has it can flee to come back at you again and again and again. Weakening Counterspell makes all those other problems stronger. So, what would you add to give players a way to interact with such spells? What could you add to make it more interesting to combat those spells, and make it more interesting for casters who then have to work around that addition?

Whilst I would not say it needs to change... I would say that for me the adjustment that could be made is that you get the spell slot of the countered spell back on a short rest. Your only 5th level spell gets countered? Ok, it sucks but at least you get to use it later.

I actually think that this would help close some of the power gap that opens up as DMs would feel a bit happier throwing more counter spells at the party and adding magic items that can counter spells. Now, there is a fine line (possibly no gap at all) between letting casters roll an encounter and being a hostile **** to them.

[DevilMcam]

I don't know, Counterspell is Really easy to work around.

It's like martials fighting invisible ennemies.
Sure the first time it may catch you of guard and be a bit frustrating. But then it actually feels rewarding to beat the ennemies spellcaster at their own game.
DnD is a team game. If my spell goes through I will deal 1PC worth of damage to the bad guy. If my spell get countered, that means other peoples' spells won't and there will be no other reactions availlable. So the bad guy is going to take 3 to 5 PCs worth of damage in his fac before he can do something.

Obviously if your party has 0 Coordination this will suck for you. But if your party is just a bunch of dumb people swinging weapons and flinging fireballs with no real purpose it kinda makes sense that a smart ennemy will get to take you down.

[NorthernPhoenix]

There's nothing wrong with them in isolation, but a certain subset of "player" (Character or DM) take them too far. My rule of thumb is always "would this look dumb in a movie" and if the answer is yes it's a problem. A climactic spell being desperately counterspelled at the right time is very dramatic and cool. Going back and forth for several rounds with several in a row reeks of "winning the boardgame" in the worst possible way.

[MoiMagnus]

There are a number of suggestions in this thread for weakening Counterspell. My question for such suggestions is this: what counterplay would you add to fill the gap that results from de-powering it? There are a number of spells that are a really bad time for the party if they happen. Even Dimension Door can be a catastrophe; any caster who has it can flee to come back at you again and again and again. Weakening Counterspell makes all those other problems stronger. So, what would you add to give players a way to interact with such spells? What could you add to make it more interesting to combat those spells, and make it more interesting for casters who then have to work around that addition?

1) Spell disruption: Either decrease the spell DC / attack bonus, or give advantage/disadvantage to the tests associated to the spell.
2) Spell weakening: Decreases effects of the spell. For damages that's simple (half-damages). For other effects, that would require a hierarchy of effects so that you can say "paralysed is reduced into 'slowed down', which mean...". Obviously not applicable to every kind of spell effects.
3) Spell delaying: Resolution of the spell is delayed. The spell is "suspended" at the position of the caster. Both you and the caster can concentrate on the delayed spell as long as you are within 60ft of the suspension's position. When none of you are concentrating on the spell anymore, the spell is resolved as initially planed, to the best of its capacities (single target spells try to target their chosen target if still within range of the suspended position, AoE trigger at the planed position, ...).

Counterspell's main advantage compared to those solution is that is it much simpler to resolve than those suggestions.

[Keravath]

While you’re probably right about the wand of smiles, the wand of entangle does not say you cast the spell without components. Just that you may cast the spell.

DMG p141
"SPELLS
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise."

All magic items that allow you to cast a spell require no components unless the description specifically requires a component. Without components it is impossible for someone to see that a spell is being cast. The character may just be waving a stick around. If a wand of entangle says nothing about requiring components then it doesn't need any which includes verbal, somatic and material. All you need to do usually is hold the item which could be as simple as holding it in your pocket or in a sheathe. There is no indication that you have to pull out a wand and wave it around to use it and there is certainly no requirement to cast a spell if you do pull it out.

[NorthernPhoenix]

DMG p141
"SPELLS
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise."

All magic items that allow you to cast a spell require no components unless the description specifically requires a component. Without components it is impossible for someone to see that a spell is being cast. The character may just be waving a stick around. If a wand of entangle says nothing about requiring components then it doesn't need any which includes verbal, somatic and material. All you need to do usually is hold the item which could be as simple as holding it in your pocket or in a sheathe. There is no indication that you have to pull out a wand and wave it around to use it and there is certainly no requirement to cast a spell if you do pull it out.

Surely you realize an argument like this is highly against the spirit of the item. Some DMs may be more lenient but i'd certainly tell you to rephrase, to put it nicely.

[Tanarii]

Neat! I had missed that.

Now, can you show me where counterspell says you can’t use it if the spell is cast without components? All it says is that you see the creature casting. Casting without components doesn’t make the creature invisible nor render it “not casting.”
The part where is says you need to see the creature casting a spell.

Also confirmed in Xanathars. Just like it confirmed RAW always was that you don't automatically identify a spell.

[Democratus]

Also confirmed in Xanathars.

I believe this is a reference to 'Perceiving a Caster at Work' on page 85 of Xanathar's.

[Segev]

I've taken the liberty of proposing an alternate formulation and approach to counterspell in this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?611922-Alternate-Counterspell), and invite discussion, crtique, or commentary either there or here. The goal, as I say there, is to create a version that plays with the more normal flow of the game where people just declare what spell they're casting as they declare they're casting it, so that there's less need to do back-and-forth before even saying what the spell is, and to make it a bit more dramatic an exchange. It also can be a way to deplete a lot of resources, even from a single-encounter monster.

[Asisreo1]

Surely you realize an argument like this is highly against the spirit of the item. Some DMs may be more lenient but i'd certainly tell you to rephrase, to put it nicely.
I mean, he's right, though. Waving a wand is something you do with a spell with a somatic/material component as a spellcasting focus. Magic item uses aren't the same, though. Most wands require you to hold them to expend the charges, though. Actually, all of them require you to hold it in your hand so unless you're using a poorly reviewed homebrew wand, you have to hold it. Some have perceptible effects, like the wand of paralysis' blue streak straight from the tip. Some don't like the Wand of Polymorph which only casts the spell.

[Tanarii]

I mean, he's right, though. Waving a wand is something you do with a spell with a somatic/material component as a spellcasting focus.
Nope. You use a free hand for the S component, and you use the same free hand to access the wand as a focus focus. If the hand is already occupied by the focus, technically you either need to empty it first or use the other free hand for the S component.

[Asisreo1]

Nope. You use a free hand for the S component, and you use the same free hand to access the wand as a focus focus. If the hand is already occupied by the focus, technically you either need to empty it first or use the other free hand for the S component.

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

I'm saying in the case where you are casting a spell that needs both material and somatic components. If it only needs somatic, you don't need to hold onto the wand.

If you're using the Magic Item property of a wand, you need to hold it but you don't need to provide somatic, material, or verbal components despite the spell's description. You can have it behind your back and you can be silenced and the wand of fireball would still work. No one would know where it originated from. Magic items are strong like that.

[Tanarii]

I'm saying in the case where you are casting a spell that needs both material and somatic components. If it only needs somatic, you don't need to hold onto the wand.

If you're using the Magic Item property of a wand, you need to hold it but you don't need to provide somatic, material, or verbal components despite the spell's description. You can have it behind your back and you can be silenced and the wand of fireball would still work. No one would know where it originated from. Magic items are strong like that.
If it has a S component and an M component, you need to still use the free hand for the S component. It's just that you also can use it to access the focus in place of the M component.

So there's a difference between casting a S/M component spell using a wand as a focus, and using a wand. The former still uses a free hand to make guestures.

A sorcerer casting a subtle spell with the wand as a focus on the other hand ...

[Veldrenor]

If it has a S component and an M component, you need to still use the free hand for the S component. It's just that you also can use it to access the focus in place of the M component.

So there's a difference between casting a S/M component spell using a wand as a focus, and using a wand. The former still uses a free hand to make guestures.


That's inaccurate. From sage advice regarding spellcasting:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting

"If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component." So no, you don't need a free hand to make gestures if using a wand as a material component (so long as the spell has a material component).

[Tanarii]

That's inaccurate. From sage advice regarding spellcasting:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting

"If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component." So no, you don't need a free hand to make gestures if using a wand as a material component (so long as the spell has a material component).
I'm aware. Problem is, that ruling doesnt agree with the RAW.

[Asisreo1]

I'm aware. Problem is, that ruling doesnt agree with the RAW.
RAW, you need both a material and somatic component. For the somatic component, you need a free hand. If you have a material component requirement, you can use That same free hand to access them and fulfill the requirement for the material. That means you fulfill both the requirements for somatic and material components in one hand. No need to free the other one.

[Asisreo1]

.

A sorcerer casting a subtle spell with the wand as a focus on the other hand ...

Why would a sorcerer need a focus if it's a subtle spell 🤔

[Luccan]

Why would a sorcerer need a focus if it's a subtle spell 🤔

Subtle Spell only replaces Somatic and Verbal components. You still have to supply Material ones. Though why you would use subtle spell and not use something that could more realistically be hidden on your person while still being held, like a crystal or even just tracking non expensive but small material components, is lost on me.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm aware. Problem is, that ruling doesnt agree with the RAW.

I mean, that's not a ruling...Page 203 of the PHB itself states "A character can use a Component Pouch or Spell Casting Focus (found in chapter 5, "Equipment) in place of the components for a specified spell...A spellcaster must have a free hand to access a spell's material components-or to hold a spellcasting focus-but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

The PHB itself states that you can use the same hand to make the Somatic gestures of a spell as you do to hold a Spell Casting Focus, be that focus a Crystal, Orb, Staff, Rod, Wand, or whatever. Now, where this does get iffy is if you have a weapon that's a focus, or if you cast a spell without a material cost.

Since the rules state that you can make the somatic components while holding your spell focus, I would think that having your weapon be your spell focus, such as with Improved Pact Weapon, it would allow you to cast spells with Material and Somatic components while holding the weapon because it is considered your Focus. Plus it would seem a bit odd to add that bit into Improved Pact Weapon and have it do literally nothing...since you'd still need a hand free either way.

[Tanarii]

RAW, you need both a material and somatic component. For the somatic component, you need a free hand. If you have a material component requirement, you can use That same free hand to access them and fulfill the requirement for the material. That means you fulfill both the requirements for somatic and material components in one hand. No need to free the other one.exactly.
It says the hand needs to be free to do the S component, and you use the same free hand to access the material component or focus. If you're already holding a focus, it's not free, so you cannot use it to do the S component.

What it does not say is "you can do your S component with the focus in hand".

The difference is in the RAW case, you use the free hand to wiggle your fingers or whatever, then grab the wand on your belt. In place of reaching into the component pouch for your M component. No object interaction required since the component rules specify you use you hand to access it. But the hand can't be holding the M component or focus to begin with, or it's not free to do the S component.

In the SAC version you use your wand to wiggle it around or whatever. I assume Crawford would be fine with wiggling the M component around as well.

[Segev]

There is no mechanical distinction between using the hand holding the material component for the somatic component and using a free hand to make the somatic gesture and then manipulating the material component. There is a technical difference, but it's a difference with no real effect, so I would be inclined as a DM to hand-wave (hah) it as whatever looks coolest. (I will note that I am arguing rulings, here; rules are what they are, but they also seem really unimportant to get to this level of specificity.)

[HiveStriker]

I'll be honest, I never get bothered by it, and I tend to enjoy using Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Antimagic Sphere as both a player and a DM. It adds a bit of a tactical choice for everyone. Do you spend your big stuff now, or save it? Do you try to get the enemy to cast Counterspell so your allies can use their spells, or no? Or perhaps you can get 60ft away from your target to get out of Counterspell range.

Dispel Magic and Antimagic Sphere are similar things. Its a nice way to counter big, powerful spells. Conjure Animal is ended by a single Dispel Magic. All your spells don't matter with Antimagic Sphere, so use a different tactic.

EDIT: I do know some DMs that get annoyed by their enemies being easily countered. But personally I find it fun if my players manage to counter an encounter in a way I hadn't expected. They could have used a spell, a position, ect. I always enjoy it. Sure, that should have been a difficult, dangerous encounter...but its not a big deal to me if they counter it with ease. It just means I have to refine my encounter building when they do that
This sums up my feelings well.

It's a tool like others. Whether it's really awesome or not depends on many things. Besides that it's simply about balance. If players feel they get shut off too often, speak with the DM. Maybe tactical expectations are too different. If DM feels all plan goes to waste too often because of a simple spell, then maybe the plan was simply insufficient (good strategies normally include fall-back plans after all).

[Tanarii]

There is no mechanical distinction between using the hand holding the material component for the somatic component and using a free hand to make the somatic gesture and then manipulating the material component. There is a technical difference, but it's a difference with no real effect, so I would be inclined as a DM to hand-wave (hah) it as whatever looks coolest. (I will note that I am arguing rulings, here; rules are what they are, but they also seem really unimportant to get to this level of specificity.)
The mechanical distinction is you'd need to use an object interaction to put your focus out of your hand before beginning. Usually that's a minor cost but I agree it's usually not important.

But in the specific case we were discussing that led to this sidebar, the important thing is: casting a spell with an S component and a wand as a focus is different from using a wand to cast a spell from it with no components. The former is you still do the S components with your free hand ... at some point during the casting you let the focus go (put it in a wand sheath on your belt, whatever) to do so.

So that's a perceivable difference in-so-far as Counterspell goes. You still see the S component, and it's not just waving the wand around, it's still done with a free hand.

[Veldrenor]

exactly.
It says the hand needs to be free to do the S component, and you use the same free hand to access the material component or focus. If you're already holding a focus, it's not free, so you cannot use it to do the S component.

What it does not say is "you can do your S component with the focus in hand".

The difference is in the RAW case, you use the free hand to wiggle your fingers or whatever, then grab the wand on your belt. In place of reaching into the component pouch for your M component. No object interaction required since the component rules specify you use you hand to access it. But the hand can't be holding the M component or focus to begin with, or it's not free to do the S component.

In the SAC version you use your wand to wiggle it around or whatever. I assume Crawford would be fine with wiggling the M component around as well.

By that reasoning you can't hold a focus at all while spellcasting unless you have another hand free. Let's say you have a shield in one hand and a sword in the other. You attempt to cast Green-Flame Blade, a VM spell whose material component is a weapon. As you yourself said, by RAW, you need to have a free hand to access the material component or focus. If you have a shield in one hand and the material component in the other, then you don't have a free hand and therefore can't cast the spell.

[Warlush]

I once pulled it on my DM who had a fireball lined up to really break the party. I counterspelled him with my Warlock, and oh man was he pissed. I can only imagine what it feels like if you are a player.

Yeah imagine being a Warlock who uses one of their precious 2 slots only to be counterspelled by the DM. Or have your Hex dispelled after concentrating through a short break to gain the slot back. It hurts.

[Segev]

The mechanical distinction is you'd need to use an object interaction to put your focus out of your hand before beginning. Usually that's a minor cost but I agree it's usually not important.

But in the specific case we were discussing that led to this sidebar, the important thing is: casting a spell with an S component and a wand as a focus is different from using a wand to cast a spell from it with no components. The former is you still do the S components with your free hand ... at some point during the casting you let the focus go (put it in a wand sheath on your belt, whatever) to do so.

So that's a perceivable difference in-so-far as Counterspell goes. You still see the S component, and it's not just waving the wand around, it's still done with a free hand.

Since you can drop the material focus freely, and the interpretation that says you need to truly have an empty hand also says it takes no object interaction to pick it back up, even that distinction goes away.

On counterspell, it says you see the creature casting the spell. It can be read that you see the creature, clarified to be one that is casting a spell, and the rule still works. But I agree that that is a silly reading.

If magic items don’t let you counterspell them, the. They are a lot better than previously advertised.

[sandmote]

The mechanical distinction is you'd need to use an object interaction to put your focus out of your hand before beginning. If this required an interaction you wouldn't be able to pick up the focus again.



You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

Same way its handled with a weapon (emphasis mine):



draw or sheathe a sword

Note also the rule is that this works while holding a focus (emphasis mine):



A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

My guess is part of the problem is the lack of intuitive ways to get around a cast spell. I'd prefer if counterspell always needed a check, but otherwise take bigger issue with the lack of counterplay. You basically need to stay out of a 60 ft. range, and if you're inside that your one option is to counterspell the counterspell. Not a great feelings.

Compare a martial with low dex, who can see beforehand that the enemy can fly and start trying a workaround. Whereas a caster needs to assume all casters can counterspell or they're only going to find out once their action has gone to waste.

[Witty Username]

Yeah imagine being a Warlock who uses one of their precious 2 slots only to be counterspelled by the DM. Or have your Hex dispelled after concentrating through a short break to gain the slot back. It hurts.

This made me think of something, how does counter spell hold up using gritty realism rules (7 day long rest and 8 hour short rest)? My gut tells me that it would be weaker for players because spell slots are at a premium, on the other hand running an enemy out of spell slots via an extended engagement may become more possible, as the wizard making a getaway will need an actionable amount of time to recover.

[Benny89]

That remind me the end of certain campaign we were playing (one of published ones) where one of the players was a Lore Bard/Hexblade 1.

The final battle was supposed to be epic because main boss is caster + very dangerous melee opponent.

Lore Bard casted Enchance Ability: Charisma on himself and he just counterspelled every single spell the boss tried to cast (20 CHA + Jack of All Trades +2 and Advantage was giving him around 16-18 roll minimum and enemy was 4th or 5th level caster) while using action to Dodge . Wasting actions and unable to do anything frustrated DM went into melee where boss was melted by Spirit Guardians, Smites and Moonbeam. He died in 2 turns. Didn't hit Bard even once cause he had 21 AC and attacks were with disadvantage.

And that is why I love counterspell :D. Especially when you have highly arrogant boss who think he is so cool and strong and when he tries to cast his spells you are like "Nope. Nah. No,no,no. Sorry, but no" and he can't do anything.

Gosh, I loved that finale. And I love Counterspell.

[MrStabby]

That remind me the end of certain campaign we were playing (one of published ones) where one of the players was a Lore Bard/Hexblade 1.

The final battle was supposed to be epic because main boss is caster + very dangerous melee opponent.

Lore Bard casted Enchance Ability: Charisma on himself and he just counterspelled every single spell the boss tried to cast (20 CHA + Jack of All Trades +2 and Advantage was giving him around 16-18 roll minimum and enemy was 4th or 5th level caster) while using action to Dodge . Wasting actions and unable to do anything frustrated DM went into melee where boss was melted by Spirit Guardians, Smites and Moonbeam. He died in 2 turns. Didn't hit Bard even once cause he had 21 AC and attacks were with disadvantage.

And that is why I love counterspell :D. Especially when you have highly arrogant boss who think he is so cool and strong and when he tries to cast his spells you are like "Nope. Nah. No,no,no. Sorry, but no" and he can't do anything.

Gosh, I loved that finale. And I love Counterspell.

To me this sounds like a bit of a rubbish anticlimactic fight. No back and forth, no cool abilities used... just one player with a finger on the "off" switch and everyone else swinging at a sack of meat. No drama, no epic struggle... just...meh. But hey, if that's how you like the game and if it was fun for you then great.

[Asisreo1]

To me this sounds like a bit of a rubbish anticlimactic fight. No back and forth, no cool abilities used... just one player with a finger on the "off" switch and everyone else swinging at a sack of meat. No drama, no epic struggle... just...meh. But hey, if that's how you like the game and if it was fun for you then great.
That's because you don't have the context. This was the BBEG of their adventure. I know how epic it is to basically make the BBEG look worthless and frustrated because the party was so much better than them. They stood on a pedestal and now they're a floormat. You've embarrased the person that's been embarrassing you the entire campaign. Even if the fight wasn't fireworks through the air, it was a powertrip.

[NorthernPhoenix]

To me this sounds like a bit of a rubbish anticlimactic fight. No back and forth, no cool abilities used... just one player with a finger on the "off" switch and everyone else swinging at a sack of meat. No drama, no epic struggle... just...meh. But hey, if that's how you like the game and if it was fun for you then great.

Yeah i agree. I probably wouldn't let that happen tbh.

[sithlordnergal]

To me this sounds like a bit of a rubbish anticlimactic fight. No back and forth, no cool abilities used... just one player with a finger on the "off" switch and everyone else swinging at a sack of meat. No drama, no epic struggle... just...meh. But hey, if that's how you like the game and if it was fun for you then great.

I mean, I personally love it when stuff like that happens. Heck, I beat the BBEG of Tomb of Annihilation in about two to three rounds. I was playing a Moon Druid, and was at level 10. I was in my Fire Elemental form and we had managed to sneak in a short rest before the final fight. The doors opened, we saw lava, and I told the Wizard to cast Fly on me. I went before the BBEG, grappled it, pulled it in the lava, and held it there. It couldn't do anything to break free and died in about 2 or 3 rounds. The worst that happened to me and the party is I had to use up my Wild Shape, and the Bard had a single level of exhaustion. No one else took damage or had to worry about a thing.

Of course Acererak walked in two turns later and the DM focus fired on me...but we still beat the BBEG with almost no problems.

[Benny89]

That's because you don't have the context. This was the BBEG of their adventure. I know how epic it is to basically make the BBEG look worthless and frustrated because the party was so much better than them. They stood on a pedestal and now they're a floormat. You've embarrased the person that's been embarrassing you the entire campaign. Even if the fight wasn't fireworks through the air, it was a powertrip.

This guys gets it. The "epicness" of a fight is not measures by how long it takes, if it was back and forth etc. It's about feeling. The BBEG was bullying us the whole campaign so to make him feel powerless was exactly what made that fight epic. We were epic, and he no longer was.

I get my staysfaction from deafiting my foes. I don't care if it takes 1 turn or 10. Victory is my reward, and if I can achieve it in cheap way- even better. If my goal is to defeat enemy - I want make sure it's best possible victory.


Yeah i agree. I probably wouldn't let that happen tbh.

It was all fair and square with what mechanic and spells says. Our DM is fair mechanically to us as we are to him. Suddenly pulling out some "deus ex machina" in final fight out of nowhere would not be fair. Our DM is fair. We earned our victory.

[Asisreo1]

Yeah i agree. I probably wouldn't let that happen tbh.
I gotta be honest, it's one thing to have a DM spare the players from a cheesy anticlimatic defeat that happened because the NPC's played the rules.

It would be utter bologna if he did that protection for an NPC. I get you want a narrative but if we won fair and square, why can't we actually get the win?

[MoiMagnus]

That remind me the end of certain campaign we were playing (one of published ones) where one of the players was a Lore Bard/Hexblade 1.

The final battle was supposed to be epic because main boss is caster + very dangerous melee opponent.

Lore Bard casted Enchance Ability: Charisma on himself and he just counterspelled every single spell the boss tried to cast (20 CHA + Jack of All Trades +2 and Advantage was giving him around 16-18 roll minimum and enemy was 4th or 5th level caster) while using action to Dodge . Wasting actions and unable to do anything frustrated DM went into melee where boss was melted by Spirit Guardians, Smites and Moonbeam. He died in 2 turns. Didn't hit Bard even once cause he had 21 AC and attacks were with disadvantage.

And that is why I love counterspell :D. Especially when you have highly arrogant boss who think he is so cool and strong and when he tries to cast his spells you are like "Nope. Nah. No,no,no. Sorry, but no" and he can't do anything.

Gosh, I loved that finale. And I love Counterspell.

That's be dangerously near to immersion breaking to me. If the main boss was weak to a simple strategy like counterspell spam, he would not have made it alive until the battles against the PCs. If that's genuinely a mistake from the DM and not something that can be easily put on the NPC's arrogance (though victory by arrogance of the big boss are kind of cheap victories, but still deserved ones), I'd expect the DM to fix it, for example with some backup plan or phase two of boss-fight.

As for preparation of boss battle if I were the DM, the answer against action-cancelling is usually just to add legendary actions and legendary resistances to your boss, or a multiple minions (including some with counterspell ready).
[So I'd probably add 2-3 mages with counterspell ready, or legendary actions that allow spellcasting to the big boss, depending on whether him being alone is important or not. I usually prefer increasing the number of enemies, as it gives more counterplays to the PCs]

[PraetorDragoon]

I gotta be honest, it's one thing to have a DM spare the players from a cheesy anticlimatic defeat that happened because the NPC's played the rules.

It would be utter bologna if he did that protection for an NPC. I get you want a narrative but if we won fair and square, why can't we actually get the win?

If I were a player, I doubt I would have liked that anticlimatic defeat. But there we enter player tastes and opinions territory. If everyone in the party had fun with it, savor your sweet victory!

[MaxWilson]

To me this sounds like a bit of a rubbish anticlimactic fight. No back and forth, no cool abilities used... just one player with a finger on the "off" switch and everyone else swinging at a sack of meat. No drama, no epic struggle... just...meh. But hey, if that's how you like the game and if it was fun for you then great.

Classic Combat As Sport response to Combat As War. Emphasis mine:



I'm not quite sure how to appeal to both sides in one game. Both are deeply gamist, but they don't agree on what the game is. For CAS, the game starts when you roll initiative. Each combat is self-contained, similar to a sports league. They get irritated if they have to bother with boring stuff like counting arrows. They get irritated if the Wizard scys the next enemy group and has the right spell prepared to end the combat in his first action.
For CAW, an entire module is a game. They get irritated if they don't get the chance to prepare fights. They hate if the resource management is handwaved. They consider it a good fight if they walk over the enemies in one big swoop.

How do you ever accomodate both? This isn't something that you can integrate by giving players spotlight who enjoy a certain game element. This is about how the DM sets up the entire game.

Benny's group loooooved walking over the BBEG thanks to superior preparation. But MrStabby is clearly CAS, and to him the encounter starts when you roll initiative, so superior preparation doesn't count as fun play to him.

[MrStabby]

Classic Combat As Sport response to Combat As War. Emphasis mine:



The group in question was clearly a Combat As War group. They loooooved walking over the BBEG thanks to superior preparation.

Hardly, I am all about context in a campaign. I am all about not expecting things to be fair and to have to do clever things to win.

I think there is a perspective difference though in that I dknt consider "I cast counterspell" to be A Clever Thing.

Now if you had epic adventures to hunt down the spell to which the bad guy was vulnerable, if you had gone on information gathering quests to establish the vulnerability and so on then you earned it. Simply using a class ability you get given is not what I think of as a core element of combat as war.

Any bad guy that goes down without much of a fight was never worth your enmity in the first place. Hire some mercenaries and use the party to fight a Big Bad Evil Guy not a moderately dangerous to some slightly unpleasant side character. They should be a threat because of their power and their intellect, and if they dont use both then they were clearly no threat and there was no real achievement in their defeat. What kind of wizard that is smart enough to be a threat doesn't pack their own counter spells anyway? The evidence that you are not dealing with a second rate wannabe is not their reputation - bar room drunkards can be as mistaken as anyone, but in how hard they can push back when their lives are on the line.

[Benny89]

That's be dangerously near to immersion breaking to me. If the main boss was weak to a simple strategy like counterspell spam, he would not have made it alive until the battles against the PCs. If that's genuinely a mistake from the DM and not something that can be easily put on the NPC's arrogance (though victory by arrogance of the big boss are kind of cheap victories, but still deserved ones), I'd expect the DM to fix it, for example with some backup plan or phase two of boss-fight.

As for preparation of boss battle if I were the DM, the answer against action-cancelling is usually just to add legendary actions and legendary resistances to your boss, or a multiple minions (including some with counterspell ready).
[So I'd probably add 2-3 mages with counterspell ready, or legendary actions that allow spellcasting to the big boss, depending on whether him being alone is important or not. I usually prefer increasing the number of enemies, as it gives more counterplays to the PCs]

Thing is, it's not like DM knew what we gonna do. He was expecting a fight to go totally differently. Our Lore Bard didn't use Counterspell at all before that (there was no need really between level 7 and 10) so DM thought that he will cast some spells, cast Dominate Person on Fighter and so on. He just totally didn't think what we can do if we "get serious". First DM fail was Initiative. Lore Bard simply used Cutting Words and cut 8 from BBEG initiative. Legendary Resistance/Actions don't help with that. So everybody went first. When it came to DM turn, he used Legendary Action to move away from party without provoking OAs and he wanted to go for big spell (5th Level Fireball). And then Counterspell came in. Action lost, slot lost. 2nd turn came and he got almost pomelled to death. DM used another Legendary Action to get away from party and tried again (Dominate Person on Fighter). Counterspell. This time he was too far for team. DM panicked and used last Legendary Action to go for Lore Bard but sadly he understimated how hard it is to hit 21 AC + Dodge + Cutting Words... And then he died.

Could he done better? Yes, if he was prepared for everything we had (Lore Bard was just one piece) prepared.

I will tell you this - everyone are smart after fight or when they hear about it. But if you are DM and you totally did not expect party tactic - Final Fight is not really time where you say "15 min break, I need to redo whole fight and my tactic". You just try your best to adapt but there is 5 people thinking how to counter you vs you alone. DMs may have great power, but most of them are hardly good in terms of tactics. They are more of story tellers.

As Mike Tyson said "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face" (or something like that).

It was great victory. Fair and square.

[sithlordnergal]

That's be dangerously near to immersion breaking to me. If the main boss was weak to a simple strategy like counterspell spam, he would not have made it alive until the battles against the PCs. If that's genuinely a mistake from the DM and not something that can be easily put on the NPC's arrogance (though victory by arrogance of the big boss are kind of cheap victories, but still deserved ones), I'd expect the DM to fix it, for example with some backup plan or phase two of boss-fight.

As for preparation of boss battle if I were the DM, the answer against action-cancelling is usually just to add legendary actions and legendary resistances to your boss, or a multiple minions (including some with counterspell ready).
[So I'd probably add 2-3 mages with counterspell ready, or legendary actions that allow spellcasting to the big boss, depending on whether him being alone is important or not. I usually prefer increasing the number of enemies, as it gives more counterplays to the PCs]

Is it immersion breaking if you kill the BBEG in three rounds simply because there's lava in the room and you're immune to fire while its not? Or smiting it in a round or two because you saved everything for the final boss fight? I don't really see how using a decent strategy is immersion breaking.

[MrStabby]

Thing is, it's not like DM knew what we gonna do. He was expecting a fight to go totally differently. Our Lore Bard didn't use Counterspell at all before that (there was no need really between level 7 and 10) so DM thought that he will cast some spells, cast Dominate Person on Fighter and so on. He just totally didn't think what we can do if we "get serious". First DM fail was Initiative. Lore Bard simply used Cutting Words and cut 8 from BBEG initiative. Legendary Resistance/Actions don't help with that. So everybody went first. When it came to DM turn, he used Legendary Action to move away from party without provoking OAs and he wanted to go for big spell (5th Level Fireball). And then Counterspell came in. Action lost, slot lost. 2nd turn came and he got almost pomelled to death. DM used another Legendary Action to get away from party and tried again (Dominate Person on Fighter). Counterspell. This time he was too far for team. DM panicked and used last Legendary Action to go for Lore Bard but sadly he understimated how hard it is to hit 21 AC + Dodge + Cutting Words... And then he died.

Could he done better? Yes, if he was prepared for everything we had (Lore Bard was just one piece) prepared.

I will tell you this - everyone are smart after fight or when they hear about it. But if you are DM and you totally did not expect party tactic - Final Fight is not really time where you say "15 min break, I need to redo whole fight and my tactic". You just try your best to adapt but there is 5 people thinking how to counter you vs you alone. DMs may have great power, but most of them are hardly good in terms of tactics. They are more of story tellers.

As Mike Tyson said "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face" (or something like that).

It was great victory. Fair and square.

I think there are certain spells that are near mandatory for wizards (or any other enemy casters that can) to take: shield, misty step, maybe mage armour, some kind of divination and of course counterspell. At higher levels things like contingency should also come into play. Wizards in general don't get much other than spellcasting - so if they don't do spellcasting well then it is a massive, masive disadvantage. Now sometimes you face an Int 7 wizard who thought it a good idea to skip these things - but that kind of wizard shouldn't survive long enough to be a BBEG.

A BBEG with any kind of respectable Int or Wis score should not be sitting around in a room by themselves waiting for a party to come in and outnumber them - they should lave layers of traps and protections and minions and alarm spells to tell them they need to buff up. Others mention the combat as war style game, if you do want to play this then it is, to me personally, more engaging if the bad guys do the same - they don't stand around waiting for you and don't present themselves as a fair fight to be overcome.

I am not saying it isn't a matter of taste what people enjoy, nor is it wrong to enjoy this - but to me an enemy that doesn't try and surviveand win to their fullest potential doesn't engage me so much; this includes spell selection.


Is it immersion breaking if you kill the BBEG in three rounds simply because there's lava in the room and you're immune to fire while its not? Or smiting it in a round or two because you saved everything for the final boss fight? I don't really see how using a decent strategy is immersion breaking.

Yeah, another wierd example. Why would you make your own home so dangerous to yourself? Is there no where else less stupid to you could set up base such that you havent surrounded yourself with a really nast hazard? Not really the intellect we might hope to match wits against for a high level enemy. Of course it is different if the set up is an ambush where you lure the enemy into a place of your chosing - then that is a pretty cool move (so long as everyone's character gets to have a key role in setting up the ambush).

[Benny89]

I think there are certain spells that are near mandatory for wizards (or any other enemy casters that can) to take: shield, misty step, maybe mage armour, some kind of divination and of course counterspell. At higher levels things like contingency should also come into play. Wizards in general don't get much other than spellcasting - so if they don't do spellcasting well then it is a massive, masive disadvantage. Now sometimes you face an Int 7 wizard who thought it a good idea to skip these things - but that kind of wizard shouldn't survive long enough to be a BBEG.

A BBEG with any kind of respectable Int or Wis score should not be sitting around in a room by themselves waiting for a party to come in and outnumber them - they should lave layers of traps and protections and minions and alarm spells to tell them they need to buff up. Others mention the combat as war style game, if you do want to play this then it is, to me personally, more engaging if the bad guys do the same - they don't stand around waiting for you and don't present themselves as a fair fight to be overcome.



That's how module is designed. Minions/traps etc. are on the way to boss. The final fight is him alone. He can summon stuff but only after few turns, he died before that. It's was as I mentioned a published campaign. So DM went with how things were supposed to be.

[MrStabby]

That's how module is designed. Minions/traps etc. are on the way to boss. The final fight is him alone. He can summon stuff but only after few turns, he died before that. It's was as I mentioned a published campaign. So DM went with how things were supposed to be.

I played Lost Mines. That's about the only pre written one. It was actually OK, quite unlike all the others I glanced at. That said I wouldn't mind playing Curse of Strahd some time as hear it isnt as bad as some of the others.

[Witty Username]

I don't think anti climatic vs climatic is an argument which resonates with me. Many of my favorite moments in d&d were anti climatic, heck as a DM I rather enjoyed describing how my baddies got got this time around (the top being a boss monster that got ended in the first round of combat because it got hit with two high rolling fireballs). As a player, fights have rarely felt climatic, and when they usually because of a combat swinging out of our favor in the space of a round or two, the best example off the top of my head was when I took my max hp in damage in a single attack while we were fighting the local Big Bad.

Counter spell is an interesting case here, because it makes battles both more climatic and anti-climatic at the same time. Sure less actual events happen, but the party will remember that one time the wizard bailed out the party from a possible tpk with a clutch 3rd level spell, kind of like a grave cleric robing enemies of their crits, allowing the DM to not shy away from the big gun effects.

If you want to take steps to weaken counter spell, I would instead recommend encounter design. 1 Archmage < 4 mages, use this math to overwhelm that pesky blue mage. heck, now you force choices to what to counter and when, as each mage could use that information to their advantage.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I gotta be honest, it's one thing to have a DM spare the players from a cheesy anticlimatic defeat that happened because the NPC's played the rules.

It would be utter bologna if he did that protection for an NPC. I get you want a narrative but if we won fair and square, why can't we actually get the win?

Oh i'd never cause the players to lose in this way, don't get me wrong they'd still win. They just don't get to win in a dumb way.

[Benny89]

Oh i'd never cause the players to lose in this way, don't get me wrong they'd still win. They just don't get to win in a dumb way.

It's not dumb way. It's perfectly RAW and legit way. If you placed boss and they were just "so I slash him" for 5 rounds and he died it's also not dumb way. You can argue it's not interesting way, but it's perfectly fine.

What the difference between counterspelling a boss and Vengeance EA Paladin getting 2 crits on him and almost deleting him in first turn? It's normal way of defeating enemies in 5e.

[NorthernPhoenix]

It's not dumb way. It's perfectly RAW and legit way. If you placed boss and they were just "so I slash him" for 5 rounds and he died it's also not dumb way. You can argue it's not interesting way, but it's perfectly fine.

What the difference between counterspelling a boss and Vengeance EA Paladin getting 2 crits on him and almost deleting him in first turn? It's normal way of defeating enemies in 5e.

I'm probably not going to be able to change your mind, so i'm not going to get into a potentially angry debate with you. I just want any third party who might be reading this who maybe never posts to know that if you feel like counterspell spam would take all the fun out of your fight, you're perfectly fine if you put a stop to it. Just make sure you're doing it to make the fight more exciting and climactic, rather than to "play to win".

[pwykersotz]

I am one of the haters of Counterspell and Dispel Magic. I hate total action denial. Blue decks in MTG are intolerable to me. And I like magic having solutions other than a catch all spell. If there's a massive wall of fire, I don't want it to be dispellable. I want to realize that there is iceweed outside the dungeon that opens a hole in the wall for a few seconds of it's thrown into it. Basically, the spells are very boring to me.

But that's just my preference.

[Democratus]

What the difference between counterspelling a boss and Vengeance EA Paladin getting 2 crits on him and almost deleting him in first turn? It's normal way of defeating enemies in 5e.

Easy. One is exciting and the other is dumb.

Counterspell is a non-event that turns other events into non-events. Narratively and mechanically dumb.

[Osuniev]

This made me think of something, how does counter spell hold up using gritty realism rules (7 day long rest and 8 hour short rest)? My gut tells me that it would be weaker for players because spell slots are at a premium, on the other hand running an enemy out of spell slots via an extended engagement may become more possible, as the wizard making a getaway will need an actionable amount of time to recover.

I can actually answer that, as my last two campaigns have been Gritty Realism, whilst the previous two were Standard Resting.

TANGENT ABOUT RESTS
First, let me reiterate that Gritty Realism is not "supposed" to make spells more of a premium, because the adventuring day of a Standard Resting campaign is supposed to have the same number of encounters (6 to 8) and short rests (2) as the adventuring tenday of Gritty realism.

Now, in practice the adventuring day of Standard Resting only seems to work if :
1. your players are in an environment where it's plausible to have 6 to 8 encounters a day (ie, a dungeon) and
2. they have an actual time pressure of less than 24h, meaning they cannot just ritual cast two or three (to get around the 24h limitation) Leomund's Tiny Huts after each fight and get all their resources back. (Yes, this is an extreme example, but in general everyone will agree that it's really hard to limit PCs long-resting after the 4th encounter)

But most scenarios (including all the official published modules) are not like that.
BECAUSE of that, spell slots are IN PRACTICE more precious in Gritty Realism rules, BUT it's more of a failure of Standard Resting rules : Fighters, Warlocks, Rogues... Basically get comparatively less powerful because the spellcasters often don't run out of spell slots.

On the other hand, it's much easier to set a time pressure in terms of weeks and months on players. They will easily realize that giving the BBEG one more week to get the McGuffin/Gather mercenaries/Steal the treasure etc is a BAD IDEA.
/END TANGENT


So : yes, Counterspell remains a VERY STRONG option in Gritty Realism, but it is COSTLY (as it SHOULD be in a Standard Resting Campaign as well, but often isn't). I had a Bard and a Sorcerer Counterspelling enemies often, but those Spell Slots are precious and they felt the cost !

In my last campaign, players actually used that against the main villain, an 18th level wizard : they realized he had been Scrying on them 4 times on the last 3 days (they got access to his spellbook, used Detect Magic and See Invisibility). They were already considering taking a Long Rest because they were low on resources, and they were PANICKED, certain he would come and Power Word Kill them before they could rest enough. But then they realized since he cast Scrying 4 times, he was certainly out of 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th spell slots, and wasn't getting them back for one week !
They then successfully tricked him into using his 9th to Wish for a Teleport.

It was a very interesting climax, and definitely felt epic.

[Asisreo1]

Easy. One is exciting and the other is dumb.

Counterspell is a non-event that turns other events into non-events. Narratively and mechanically dumb.
Both require a roll to succeed, if the countering spell is high enough.

[Tanarii]

1. your players are in an environment where it's plausible to have 6 to 8 encounters (ie, a dungeon) and
If your dungeons have only 6-8 medium encounters they are more of a lair. I used lots of lairs and min-dungeons like that, and it's quite small.

[Nifft]

If your dungeons have only 6-8 medium encounters they are more of a lair. I used lots of lairs and min-dungeons like that, and it's quite small.

Somebody roll for Bend Bars & Lift Gatekeeping.

[Osuniev]

If your dungeons have only 6-8 medium encounters they are more of a lair. I used lots of lairs and min-dungeons like that, and it's quite small.

I meant 6-8 encounters PER DAY, sorry. It kind of strains my suspension of disbelief to imagine 6-8 encounters a day in a city, or in the jungle, or in the desert, or in a swamp, or...

[MrStabby]

Easy. One is exciting and the other is dumb.

Counterspell is a non-event that turns other events into non-events. Narratively and mechanically dumb.

Although which should be considered dumb?

I mean, I am a proponent of the view that counterspell in its current form isn't great for the game...

But I am also of the view that everyone should shine in the most climactic moments of a campaign.

If it's a boss fight and one person is doing so much damage in such a short period that other peple don't get to fulfil their potential then I would say that that is even more "dumb"; to be clear, I have no problem with a paladin blowing away other enemies as I don't think that everyone needs to be equal in all circumstances, just the main campaing defining bad-guys and being similarly cool overall.

Counterspell, for all its flaws, does at least allow your team-mates to do their cool things (unless their cool thing was dispell magic).

[Tanarii]

I meant 6-8 encounters PER DAY, sorry. It kind of strains my suspension of disbelief to imagine 6-8 encounters a day in a city, or in the jungle, or in the desert, or in a swamp, or...

Then run 3 deadly encounters per day, which is within guidelines. But then I like my wilderness as dangerous wilderness.


In civilized areas it is a different thing. Those journeys don't even require encounter rolls at all you just say you arrived at point B.


Urban is like a dungeon it's actually more likely to have considerably more than that on an adventuring day. The other days you just skip because theyre downtime

[Skylivedk]

Easy. One is exciting and the other is dumb.

Counterspell is a non-event that turns other events into non-events. Narratively and mechanically dumb.

How is it a non-event to have the faith of everyone hanging on a near coin-toss? Flavour the flavour out of that **** and do so until flavour runs out of flavour. Honestly having that counterspell roll in midair should have the same excitement factor as as crit roll. If you can't make that exciting, it's not on the mechanics, it's on you. I'm not kidding around.

Most of my current high level (CAW) build and action conundrums are around the battle between dispel magic, counterspell, buffs, concentration and other aspects of range and action economy.

I'd rather have a deeper system than mirror and blank slate (i.e. this turn you remove all X effect types and double all y effect type; or 50% plus to ALL other types of effects including range, targets, durations etc). In other words: I'm fine with dispel magic (though it really really hurts it's not 10 + 2x spell level when you look at some other 20 DC's) and counterspell, bit that's mostly because removing them with no for replacement is worse

[Democratus]

How is it a non-event to have the faith of everyone hanging on a near coin-toss? Flavour the flavour out of that **** and do so until flavour runs out of flavour. Honestly having that counterspell roll in midair should have the same excitement factor as as crit roll. If you can't make that exciting, it's not on the mechanics, it's on you. I'm not kidding around.


Because what's being discussed is the system, not the narrative abilities of each individual table.

A DM can always patch something bad into something good. And that's a feature of 5e. But when discussing a spell, just the spell should be considered - not the various 'flavours' that can be added outside of them.