New Rule Twist: No Counterspelling a Cantrip

[Cikomyr2]

I know it seems anodine, but I am wondering what impact on the game preventing the counterspelling of cantrips do.

Just removing some of the thunder Counterspell has, without breaking it with too big of a nerf?

[ProsecutorGodot]

In most cases the effects of a Cantrip aren't necessarily worth counterspelling. If anything you're removing bad options for the Counterspeller, unless your plan is to have Counterspell automatically fail rather than not being able to react to a cantrip at all.

Seems like a poor change, one angle it makes Counterspell more reliable and the other it plays gotcha with the players resources.

[Falconcry]

I’m a bit confused. I am not sure why you would waste a third level or higher spell slot on an at will spell that could just be cast again next turn?

[Lunali]

I’m a bit confused. I am not sure why you would waste a third level or higher spell slot on an at will spell that could just be cast again next turn?

As an arcane trickster that had booming blade get countered, there can be a significant benefit depending on the cantrip.

[MaxWilson]

I’m a bit confused. I am not sure why you would waste a third level or higher spell slot on an at will spell that could just be cast again next turn?

Because you're a monster (e.g. Neogi Master, Spirit Naga) who doesn't usually get in multiple "fights per day" and you're more interested in shutting down whatever spells the humans cast so you and your minions can enslave them than you are in conserving spell slots?

[heavyfuel]

Don't really see a goal with this houserule. It would nerf Counterspell a bit, but it would hardly make it less of a really strong spell.

It does seem weird to justify from a logic perspective. Why would a spell so simple that anyone can cast with a bit of study (aka Magic Initiate) be impossible to counter?


As an arcane trickster that had booming blade get countered, there can be a significant benefit depending on the cantrip.

This seems more like "working as intended". Booming Blade is a top tier cantrip on a lot of builds, the fact that it can be counterspelled just comes with the territory.

[Bobthewizard]

I know it seems anodine, but I am wondering what impact on the game preventing the counterspelling of cantrips do.

Just removing some of the thunder Counterspell has, without breaking it with too big of a nerf?

No. no. no. Using counter spell on a cantrip is a waste of a spell slot. It sounds like you are telling players what spell is being cast. Just follow the rules and don't do that. They should know that the enemy is casting a spell and have to decide whether to counterspell, but they should not know what spell is being cast. Counterspell takes a reaction. Knowing what spell they are casting takes a reaction and a successful Arcana check. You can't do both in the same round, barring one character determining the spell and yelling it out for the counterspeller.

Now if you want to say counterspell fails if the enemy is casting a cantrip, then that is funny.

[Tanarii]

Its kind of a buff if you're not telling players what the spell is unless they spend a reaction and make an arcana check (per Xanathars), and it automatically fails to counter but they get to keep the slot if it's a cantrip. Most players would probably rather lose the slot. Of course, there might be times they'd rather have successfully countered anyway.

It's a straight nerf if that's the case and they automatically fail to counter and lose the slot too.

If you're giving away spell Being cast info for free, it's a slight nerf. But for most players probably not a hugely noticeable one most of the time.

[MaxWilson]

Why is everybody assuming that this is intended to be a nerf to the players instead of to the monsters?

Who do you think is more likely to be casting cantrips that get Counterspelled, players or monsters?

[OvisCaedo]

If I, as a caster, was up against an enemy or master who also had high enough level magic to be using counterspells... I don't think I'd generally be casting cantrips much! That sounds more like an encounter that would usually merit spending actual resources on. Unless I was a warlock, I guess! Maybe AT or EK.

Unless, of course, I was trying to do something like use a cantrip to bait their counterspell/reaction out. Which seems like a tactic that would stop working if cantrips were made ineligible! Or would they be allowed to cast counterspell anyhow despite it being guaranteed to do nothing? Which is why I have to echo the question of what this sort of change is meant to actually do. Cantrips being counterspelled is generally not thought of as part of the "thunder" of the spell, it's more often considered a wasted counterspell. If it was changed to be EXTRA wasted, I think that's more just adding insult to injury than actually reigning the spell in.

[Cyclops08]

Sounds great for warlocks. or Sorlocks. Qiucken Spell means my 5th level sorlock will be casting 4D10 +20 that cannot be dispelled (assuming that all rays hit).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why is everybody assuming that this is intended to be a nerf to the players instead of to the monsters?

Who do you think is more likely to be casting cantrips that get Counterspelled, players or monsters?

I don't really see it as a "nerf" to players. It's pretty much exclusively a positive for players. Players are a lot more likely to rely on cantrips, now the players who have picked the "best" cantrips cannot be Counterspelled, Warlocks/BB Users noticeably benefit greatly from this as their primary source of damage now escapes the grasp of enemy spell casters. Meanwhile the players with Counterspell can now be certain that their Counterspell is always hitting a finite resource, although it was already pretty certain because as you say Monsters don't have a tomorrow if they die. They're probably not casting cantrips anyway.

It's framed as "taking the thunder" away from Counterspell but it seems to me like Counterspell would be made disproportionately favorable to the players.

I don't think that was the goal, although you could be right and maybe it was intended to only harshly impact NPC.

[MaxWilson]

I know it seems anodine, but I am wondering what impact on the game preventing the counterspelling of cantrips do.

Just removing some of the thunder Counterspell has, without breaking it with too big of a nerf?


I don't really see it as a "nerf" to players. It's pretty much exclusively a positive for players. Players are a lot more likely to rely on cantrips, now the players who have picked the "best" cantrips cannot be Counterspelled, Warlocks/BB Users noticeably benefit greatly from this as their primary source of damage now escapes the grasp of enemy spell casters. Meanwhile the players with Counterspell can now be certain that their Counterspell is always hitting a finite resource, although it was already pretty certain because as you say Monsters don't have a tomorrow if they die. They're probably not casting cantrips anyway.

It's framed as "taking the thunder" away from Counterspell but it seems to me like Counterspell would be made disproportionately favorable to the players.

I don't think that was the goal, although you could be right and maybe it was intended to only harshly impact NPC.

My impression is that the OP is a player who's tired of getting Noped by the monsters and is asking for permission to do something little without getting Noped. (And for some reason has chosen to ask the Internet instead of the DM.)

Maybe I'm wrong but that's what it seems like.

[ProsecutorGodot]

My impression is that the OP is a player who's tired of getting Noped by the monsters and is asking for permission to do something little without getting Noped. (And for some reason has chosen to ask the Internet instead of the DM.)

Maybe I'm wrong but that's what it seems like.

Fair, I can see that possibly being the case. Definitely makes more sense for it to be framed as a "nerf" from that angle.

I'm still not really a fan of the change personally, when we stopped saying "I cast fireball" and switched to "I cast a spell" that's when Counterspell lost a lot of its "unfair" power at our table.

[Cikomyr2]

My impression is that the OP is a player who's tired of getting Noped by the monsters and is asking for permission to do something little without getting Noped. (And for some reason has chosen to ask the Internet instead of the DM.)

Maybe I'm wrong but that's what it seems like.

Nah. It's just that I saw a DM use Counterspell on cantrips just because he could, and I was wondering how the entire dynamic of Caster fight might change if you know you can't Counterspell a cantrip.

[Tanarii]

Why is everybody assuming that this is intended to be a nerf to the players instead of to the monsters?

Who do you think is more likely to be casting cantrips that get Counterspelled, players or monsters?
Monsters. By far.

OTOH the OP already clarified they're coming from a player perspective. :smallamused:

[sithlordnergal]

I mean...it would give a slight buff to cantrips, and depending on the cantrip that could be good or bad. Case in point, as a DM I rather enjoy tossing out Chill Touch against players simply because it blocks any and all healing. I've had a few Chill Touches counterspelled, and a few Eldritch Blasts, simply because the players didn't want to deal with the damage/lingering effects.

All in all though, not a big deal.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

No. no. no. Using counter spell on a cantrip is a waste of a spell slot. It sounds like you are telling players what spell is being cast. Just follow the rules and don't do that. They should know that the enemy is casting a spell and have to decide whether to counterspell, but they should not know what spell is being cast. Counterspell takes a reaction. Knowing what spell they are casting takes a reaction and a successful Arcana check. You can't do both in the same round, barring one character determining the spell and yelling it out for the counterspeller.

Now if you want to say counterspell fails if the enemy is casting a cantrip, then that is funny.

That's an optional rule from Xanathar's guide to everything.
I say optional because not everyone have it.

[MoiMagnus]

That's an optional rule from Xanathar's guide to everything.
I say optional because not everyone have it.

Well, the optional rule is to allow you to identify a spell with a Reaction, not to prevent your from knowing the spell. Without Xanathar's rules, you have no way at all of knowing what spell is cast at all, and have to rely on Rule 0 from the DM to give you this information.

By default you get no info other than "the enemy is casting a spell" and then "what are the observable effects of the spell" once the spell is resolved (so too late to counterspell). It's part of the worldbuilding (hence purely DM choice) to decide if the spellcasting act betray some amount of information about the spell (e.g. spellcasters shooting the name of the spell like in OOTS), and if once the character get the info it still have the time to use its reaction to counterspell.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It does seem weird to justify from a logic perspective. Why would a spell so simple that anyone can cast with a bit of study (aka Magic Initiate) be impossible to counter?
Because it's TOO simple. By the time you can react and throw a counterspell at it, it's already taking effect.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Because it's TOO simple. By the time you can react and throw a counterspell at it, it's already taking effect.

The time of frame for casting a spell puts Reaction spells as the quickest examples. Not that there's much to go on, but with what little we have Reaction's should be exempt from Counterspell if quickness of casting is the argument.

[Mellack]

Because it's TOO simple. By the time you can react and throw a counterspell at it, it's already taking effect.

Cantrips still take the regular time, usually an action. If speed were the deciding factor, then it wouldn't be possible to counter bonus action or reaction spells, but that is allowed. Using counterspell to cancel a counterspell is a common use.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Cantrips still take the regular time, usually an action. If speed were the deciding factor, then it wouldn't be possible to counter bonus action or reaction spells, but that is allowed. Using counterspell to cancel a counterspell is a common use.
I didn't say it was RAW, just a possible fluff justification for the houserule.

[MaxWilson]

The time of frame for casting a spell puts Reaction spells as the quickest examples. Not that there's much to go on, but with what little we have Reaction's should be exempt from Counterspell if quickness of casting is the argument.

Exempting reaction spells and bonus action spells is not an terrible idea, and at least it shuts down the horrible boringness of Counter-Counterspell (which is basically just a tax).

[Yakk]

Exempting reaction spells and bonus action spells is not an terrible idea, and at least it shuts down the horrible boringness of Counter-Counterspell (which is basically just a tax).
I just rule that you cannot cast two S spells at once. So if you are casting a S spell, you cannot counter the counter of your spell. Your hand(s) are busy. (Similarly, if you have 1 free hand, and it is handling the focus/M, you cannot counterspell).

If you cast a V spell, and they counterspell, you can counter that counter. There aren't many V spells.