Reply to hate on Counterspell: new mechanic, total rework.

[Aaedimus]

The recent "What's up with the hate on counterspell" post 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, and how you'd change it to make it fun without throwing off the game.

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

-(because of this, 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?
I think having a counterspell mechanic definitely has its place, however I think just using a spell as a reaction really is what ruins the game when people (DM or player use it). Instead of just being a "No" button, here you can have an interesting interaction with more give and take. if you REALLY want that spell to go off (or to counter the spell) you can JUICE IT! depending on how important that is to you.

[Frozenstep]

First off, too much back and forth complexity. Stuff like this could seriously slow down combat, especially if a DM has to come up with some sort of mishap that is fair and makes sense. It's better to keep things simple.

Second, too much risk. Burning your action and reaction just to have a chance to maybe burn an enemy action/spell slot will be far too niche. It'll also feel stupid because many enemies that can cast spells also have regular attacks that are plenty dangerous. I just can't see it being fun.

[Aaedimus]

How would you change it to make it more fun?

[Segev]

As I said in the other thread (though you wrote this while I was posting there), giving up your own action and reaction makes it about as bad as 3.5 counterspelling, which nobody really used.

However, your back-and-forth CAN be done, I think, as long as it's something that can be resolved quickly. Here's my proposal:

Counterspell
3rd-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous
You disrupt or squelch the power of a spell as another creature casts it. When the creature casts the spell, you may take a reaction to cast this one. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect, unless the creature chooses to expend a spell slot of 3rd level or higher to back it up. If they do, you may expend another spell slot of at least the level they expended in order to cancel it out. They may then respond in kind, if they choose, expending a spell slot of at least as high a level as the one you used. This continues until one of you chooses not to - or cannot - spend another spell slot of the same level as the last one used. If you are the last one to spend a spell slot, the spell the other creature was casting fails. If the other creature is the last to expend a spell slot, the spell succeeds. All spell slots remain expended.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you can counter a spell of the same level as the slot you use to cast it, and the spell slot the opponent uses to try to force it through despite your counterspell must be of the same or higher level than the slot you used to cast this spell.

[Man_Over_Game]

How would you change it to make it more fun?

Had a similar thought to yours, copied from the other thread, still waking up:


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.