How important is Counterspell?

[Foolwise]

I am the only party member with access to Counterspell via Bard's Magical Secrets. I started Hexblade 2, but will go Bard the rest of the way. College of Glamour fits my theme best- basically becoming a world-reknown performer. But then I have to wait until level 12 for Counterspell. Going College of Lore gets Counterspell online at 8. Is that 4 level bump in access worth losing the synergy of Glamour with my build? Does a party need it? Should I even take it?

[J-H]

It depends on your DM and campaign.

[Foolwise]

And to be fair, I feel Glamour adds more to my build than Lore. But I have no experience playing outside of Tier 1 so I do not know how crucial Counterspell is for a group.

Lore gets 3 skills and Cutting Words, while Glamour gets Enthralling Performance and Mantle of Inspiration. Thematically, Glamour all the way here and mechanically I would edge it past Lore as well.

With Jack of All Trades, extra skill profs aren't really needed. So 3 skills get 1 or 2 point bonus, I don't know the math but I doubt those points will turn a failure into a success that often. Cutting Words is amazing, but I do have Shield and AoA from Hexblade to mitigate the loss of Cutting Words. Mantle of Inspiration got stronger after DM ruled AoO happen when you enter a hostile space.

Lore hands down here. Early Magical Secrets is so strong. Glamour's 1 min long Command feat is nice, but doesn't hold a candle to Magical Secrets. It does have a great baked in combo with Enthralling Performance, but may not get used much if the group doesn't dive in the deep end for social roleplay. We have new players so I am hoping this will change.

Peerless Skill vs. Unbreakable Majesty. Glamour hands down here. I feel like I will always have better uses for my bardic dice then maybe passing a skill check with Peerless Skill. Meanwhile once per rest, my character will be near unhittable for a concentrationless minute? One of the best subclass capstones in the game imo.

[tKUUNK]

yeah, as already said, this depends a lot on campaign / DM tendencies.

It's a great spell, period. In our current Tier 3 game there have been times where our party would have benefitted from it (nobody has it). But we manage without.

So then. I wouldn't base my choice of bard school on picking it up sooner. More like, if you already WANTED to go Lore Bard, then great, counterspell is in the running for one of your level 6 picks. And even then, I'd understand if someone didn't take counterspell.

[MoiMagnus]

I am the only party member with access to Counterspell via Bard's Magical Secrets. I started Hexblade 2, but will go Bard the rest of the way. College of Glamour fits my theme best- basically becoming a world-reknown performer. But then I have to wait until level 12 for Counterspell. Going College of Lore gets Counterspell online at 8. Is that 4 level bump in access worth losing the synergy of Glamour with my build? Does a party need it? Should I even take it?

IMO, like most choices in 5e, counterspell is not worth reducing your own fun as your character will still be quite viable if you don't take it.

How effective it is depends a lot on the GM.
+ Obviously, if the GM doesn't like spellcaster enemies, it won't see much uses.
+ Nova playstyle also favour counterspell (as you want to burn your spellslots ASAP), while attrition playstyle makes it much more circumstantial.
+ It can be a must-have with some rare GMs where if you don't have it you will be screwed every other days.
+ With other GMs, it can be actually detrimental as the GM will adapt its playstyle around it making the situation worse than if you didn't take it in the first place.
+ Not every GM runs counterspell the same anyway (do you know the spell you're countering or is it blind? etc)

So it's near impossible to say if it would be "optimal" from a minmaxing perspective.

[ad_hoc]

And to be fair, I feel Glamour adds more to my build than Lore. But I have no experience playing outside of Tier 1 so I do not know how crucial Counterspell is for a group.

Lore gets 3 skills and Cutting Words, while Glamour gets Enthralling Performance and Mantle of Inspiration. Thematically, Glamour all the way here and mechanically I would edge it past Lore as well.

With Jack of All Trades, extra skill profs aren't really needed. So 3 skills get 1 or 2 point bonus, I don't know the math but I doubt those points will turn a failure into a success that often. Cutting Words is amazing, but I do have Shield and AoA from Hexblade to mitigate the loss of Cutting Words. Mantle of Inspiration got stronger after DM ruled AoO happen when you enter a hostile space.

Lore hands down here. Early Magical Secrets is so strong. Glamour's 1 min long Command feat is nice, but doesn't hold a candle to Magical Secrets. It does have a great baked in combo with Enthralling Performance, but may not get used much if the group doesn't dive in the deep end for social roleplay. We have new players so I am hoping this will change.

Peerless Skill vs. Unbreakable Majesty. Glamour hands down here. I feel like I will always have better uses for my bardic dice then maybe passing a skill check with Peerless Skill. Meanwhile once per rest, my character will be near unhittable for a concentrationless minute? One of the best subclass capstones in the game imo.


I disagree with your assessment here.

Cutting Words is not as good as it reads because it competes with Bardic Inspiration which is very strong. It's nice to have Cutting Words on hand but I'd rather be using my dice for BI.

MoI also uses BI dice but I like its potential more than Cutting Words.

Bardic Secrets are good but it doesn't give more spell slots or anything. Best use is probably to get another attack cantrip as Bards lack for those. Otherwise Bard has good enough 1st-3rd level spells that it isn't needed. Esp. if using Tasha's for Aid and Slow. What level spell would you say MoM would be the equivalent to? You get that as added power not competing with your spell slots like secrets does.

I wouldn't worry about the 14th level abilities, they come too late in the game to make it part of your decision making.



At the end of the day these assessments don't mean as much as what kind of character you're actually going to have more fun playing with. If you take College of Lore you're eventually going to get bored with the combat options it gives you and then what do you have?

[Greywander]

IMO, like most choices in 5e, counterspell is not worth reducing your own fun as your character will still be quite viable if you don't take it.
This. If you have easy access to Counterspell, e.g. on a wizard, then definitely take it. It's a good spell. Otherwise, don't sweat it. If you still want to pick it up later via Magical Secrets, that's fine. But I don't think it's worth switching subclasses just to get it a little early.

[Schwann145]

DM: "The enemy caster begins the chanting and gesturing of spellcasting. Would anyone like to react?"
Player: "I'd like to cast a Counterspell!"
DM: "Okay, cool. Let's roll some dice..."
Did the Counterspell stop a clutch spell from ruining the party's day, or did it just negate an annoying, but mostly unimportant, blast or some such? You'll never know until it's too late.

This is how Counterspell works via RAW. It's a gamble every time you cast it because the only way to identify a spell as it's being cast requires using your Reaction, which Counterspell also requires.
When played correctly, it's really not a very good spell since you can't plan around it effectively, and you won't miss out on much by skipping it.


DM: "The enemy caster casts a Disintegrate at so-and-so's character. They need to make a..."
Player: "Oh! I would like to Counterspell that, please and thank you!"
DM: "Okay, cool. Let's roll some dice..."

This is how many (many) people who don't like reading books use the Counterspell spell. The player knows the spell being countered before casting, so they know if it's a good use of the slot or not. It means every time you cast it, it's likely going to be clutch and save the day from something awful that you really don't want to have to deal with.
When played incorrectly this way, and your GM likes using enemy spellcasters enough that something like Counterspell would see use, it's sooo incredibly good and you'd be kinda crazy not to pick it up.

:smallsmile:

[Greywander]

Did the Counterspell stop a clutch spell from ruining the party's day, or did it just negate an annoying, but mostly unimportant, blast or some such? You'll never know until it's too late.
This is how Counterspell works via RAW. It's a gamble every time you cast it because the only way to identify a spell as it's being cast requires using your Reaction, which Counterspell also requires.
When played correctly, it's really not a very good spell since you can't plan around it effectively, and you won't miss out on much by skipping it.
Often it doesn't matter. No one wastes a turn casting a pointless spell, so you have to assume that whatever spell they're casting is intended to ruin your day. If you're baiting someone to Counterspell a cantrip, then the fight will be over before they've run out of slots for Counterspell, and you'll be dead. Trading your action for the enemy's reaction is not a good trade, but the reverse is a great trade.

[Schwann145]

Often it doesn't matter. No one wastes a turn casting a pointless spell, so you have to assume that whatever spell they're casting is intended to ruin your day. If you're baiting someone to Counterspell a cantrip, then the fight will be over before they've run out of slots for Counterspell, and you'll be dead. Trading your action for the enemy's reaction is not a good trade, but the reverse is a great trade.

What'd you mean by "baiting?"
A cantrip, as it's cast, looks like any other spell you didn't identify being cast. The GM either cheats in favor of the player and lets them know it would be a massive waste, or everyone plays as the rules are intended and the player makes the gamble, and maybe the gamble fails to pay off in the worst way (by catching a cantrip turn instead of a Sickening Radiance turn). There's no trickery or baiting or whatever involved - that's just the way the spell works.

(And I wasn't even considering a cantrip, lol. That would feel awful! I was thinking more like, wasting a Counter on the Lich's Mirror Image when it would be way more useful against it's Globe of Invulnerability or Cloudkill, etc!)

[Kane0]

Its up there with better third level spells like fireball, spirit guardians and revivify, but not mandatory to pick because its really only useful A) against other casters B) if you can spot (and identify, thanks xanathar), C) have your reaction available and D) are in range.

[Greywander]

What'd you mean by "baiting?"
A cantrip, as it's cast, looks like any other spell you didn't identify being cast. The GM either cheats in favor of the player and lets them know it would be a massive waste, or everyone plays as the rules are intended and the player makes the gamble, and maybe the gamble fails to pay off in the worst way (by catching a cantrip turn instead of a Sickening Radiance turn). There's no trickery or baiting or whatever involved - that's just the way the spell works.

(And I wasn't even considering a cantrip, lol. That would feel awful! I was thinking more like, wasting a Counter on the Lich's Mirror Image when it would be way more useful against it's Globe of Invulnerability or Cloudkill, etc!)
"Baiting" means trying to provoke a specific response from someone. In this case, you're trying to get the enemy caster to waste a Counterspell by threatening a powerful spell when in reality it's just a cantrip or low level spell.

But it doesn't matter. If an enemy mage never gets to cast a spell because you Counterspelled them every time, it really doesn't matter if they were casting a cantrip or something powerful. In fact, casting something 4th+ level actually gives them a chance to get the spell out. The reality is that you have more spell slots than you do actions, so the action economy is more important than spell slot efficiency. You don't have enough actions to waste on piddly cantrips when there's something better you could be casting.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What'd you mean by "baiting?"
A cantrip, as it's cast, looks like any other spell you didn't identify being cast. The GM either cheats in favor of the player and lets them know it would be a massive waste, or everyone plays as the rules are intended and the player makes the gamble, and maybe the gamble fails to pay off in the worst way (by catching a cantrip turn instead of a Sickening Radiance turn). There's no trickery or baiting or whatever involved - that's just the way the spell works.
It's a bit of a gamble, but the odds are better than you think. NPC spellcasters are fragile; they (and more importantly, the GM) only have a small window of opportunity to make a difference. Combine with the fact that they won't have to make it through a half-dozen encounters before they can take a long rest, and they're almost certainly not going to waste time casting Fire Bolt or Expeditious Retreat-- they'll go straight to the big guns and throw out a Fireball or Wall of Force or something.

EDIT:

"The reality is that you have more spell slots than you do actions, so the action economy is more important than spell slot efficiency. You don't have enough actions to waste on piddly cantrips when there's something better you could be casting.
This exactly.

[strangebloke]

All the big points have been made already, but the biggest thing to underline here is this:

you use it as a reaction
it potentially denies an enemy their action

when counterspell works, it effectively removes an enemy from the board for a turn, and critically you still get to do everything you otherwise would.

Is it efficient? Maybe not. If you're level 5 I'd tend toward 'not' because you only have two 3rd level spells. But if you're level 11? Let it rip. Even then, 100% of the resources you don't use are wasted so even if you're level 5 it might be worth it if it allows you to take control of a fight. Of course, as good as it is, its only good situationally, so building around it is usually a waste.

Fun fact for you DMs out there: Counterspell is way, way better on an enemy. Want to make a high level encounter aggravating? Add a mage who casts counterspell on ever single turn, then put loads of difficult terrain and big blocky monsters between him and the PCs.

[kazaryu]

I am the only party member with access to Counterspell via Bard's Magical Secrets. I started Hexblade 2, but will go Bard the rest of the way. College of Glamour fits my theme best- basically becoming a world-reknown performer. But then I have to wait until level 12 for Counterspell. Going College of Lore gets Counterspell online at 8. Is that 4 level bump in access worth losing the synergy of Glamour with my build? Does a party need it? Should I even take it?

gonna throw in my support for the 'its a good spell, but not mandatory'.

thing is, unless your DM is playing in a *very* specific way, almost no spells or even builds are mandatory. even a champion fighter (probably the overall weakest subclass in the game) is going to be fairly viable in most campaigns. So while yes, there are amazing options out there, you should never (imo) feel pressured into taking them if they don't fit your character.

[Chronos]

One point that I don't think has been mentioned yet is that Counterspell is even better on a bard, if you can get it, than on any other caster other than an abjurer. If you're trying to counter a spell that's a higher level than yours, you need to make a roll to succeed... and that roll is an ability check, and so bards get to add half their proficiency bonus via Jack of All Trades.

That said, it's probably not so good that it's worth completely changing your build, thematically and mechanically, just to get it a few levels earlier.

[Chronic]

Counterspell is a good but situational spell. As a gm I rely a lot on spellcasters, but since I tend to run several of them and like buffs and debuffs, and it's not rare for at least one of them to have counterspell themselves past a certain level, rarely do my players feel like they have save the fight with a counterspell. Doesn't mean it's not useful.

[Foolwise]

Appreciate the responses. Made the decision to stick with Glamour easy. If the campaign reaches level 12, I'll have a much better idea by then if Counterspell will be a useful pickup or not.

[Gtdead]

In theory:

It's a spell that gets progressively better. At lvl 5 you will probably never cast it. At level 11 it's going to be the only thing that goes between an enemy Archmage that won initiative and TPK.

In practice:

The simple fact of the matter is that enemy casters feel more dangerous than your own casters. This is because they don't have to deal with spell management. From the party's point of view, they have infinite spells. Spell casters are weak but the most important round in the game is the first one. If the party is optimized and has the mobility/range to snipe enemy casters, the best thing you can do is counterspell their shield. If the party is unoptimized, doesn't have a lot of killing potential and reliable anticaster abilities then you REALLY need that counterspell and it's worth it to trade your spellslot and reaction for an enemy's action that is probably going to be higher CR than your level.

In addition, this spell is very good for summoners and casters that rely on persistent effects. If you summon wolves or have an army of skeletons, your tactic is weak to a fireball. However if you keep counterspelling the enemy caster then your minions will kill him eventually. It's a very pricey duel, but it's reliable.

In my opinion, get it with the level 10 magical secrets. At level 8 you still face fireballs. In T3 you face Archmages.

[Amdy_vill]

not very, Counterspell gets overhyped. it affects very few monsters in the game and those monsters tend to be of 10+ cr. this is one of those white room ideas. while its power vs. magic using monster is extremely useful it only becomes broken in-game with large amounts of magic-using monsters or it becomes very useful in games over level 10. it's like justifying the wizard's bad class design because they get wish at level 17, if something requires high level or extreme dm customization it's usually an extremely mixed bag.

on top of this, the new way WotC makes monster devalues it a lot. with monster getting cool special non-spell powers it reduces counterspells usefulness extremely. Now having said that it does not mean you shouldn't pick up counter spell but I don't think a magical secret or a sub-class change is worth it unless you know your dm runs a lot of casters. even if you dm runs a lot of casters i would argue the subclass change is not worth it. you don't really need counterspell till after level 10 and your themeing is probably worth more to you than picking up one spell a few level early.

[Mr. Wonderful]

This is how many (many) people who don't like reading books use the Counterspell spell. The player knows the spell being countered before casting, so they know if it's a good use of the slot or not. It means every time you cast it, it's likely going to be clutch and save the day from something awful that you really don't want to have to deal with.
When played incorrectly this way, and your GM likes using enemy spellcasters enough that something like Counterspell would see use, it's sooo incredibly good and you'd be kinda crazy not to pick it up.

A useful balance is allowing casters within 60' to make an Arcana check to determine the spell, but never to know if it's being upcast. Then a decision can be made on whether to try to Counterspell or grin and take it.

Most Wizards won't have a problem with that check, but other classes may find it more challenging, which seems appropriate. A couple of other things to keep in mind - it won't work on spells cast using Subtle spell, and the caster or his allies can Counterspell the Counterspell by using their reaction.

The whole thing does take on the flavor of a wizard's duel, what with all the different moves being made.

Unfortunately, OP is not a wizard. So to finally answer the question I'd definitely take it but I don't think it's worth derailing your plans for it.

[Greywander]

It would be helpful to know the spell being cast, as it may not be worth a Counterspell, but it's not particularly vital. As I said in a previous post, you have more spell slots than actions; you'd better be making sure any spell you cast counts. You don't need to know what spell is being cast, you just have to count on it being the most effective spell that the enemy mage can be casting at the moment. If it's anything less, then they're not a very good mage, and you're going to defeat them quickly anyway. There can be value in holding back and waiting for the right opportunity to unleash your full power, but all too often the fight is over before that opportunity presents itself. The best time to strike is usually on round 1, where the right spell can tip the odds in your favor and keep them that way for the rest of the fight.

[MoiMagnus]

This is how many (many) people who don't like reading books use the Counterspell spell. The player knows the spell being countered before casting, so they know if it's a good use of the slot or not. It means every time you cast it, it's likely going to be clutch and save the day from something awful that you really don't want to have to deal with.
When played incorrectly this way, and your GM likes using enemy spellcasters enough that something like Counterspell would see use, it's sooo incredibly good and you'd be kinda crazy not to pick it up.

Having read through many threads about this debate, I can confidently say that many of those peoples read the books in quite some length. (While others don't really care about the rules and don't want to change the flow of their game, so you could classify them as "houseruling spellcasting for practical reasons" rather than "being wrong")

Going with the argument that convinced me the most:

Firstly, they reject Xanathar's optional rules about spell identification as being a downgrade of something which would have been possible without spending a Reaction in the PHB. There is no reason for the GM to not grant at the very least a Passive Arcana check to the spellcasters for free (if not an active one), using Xanathar's formula for DC or any other one of the GM's liking (e.g. the GM determine according to the circumstances, like how much chaos there is in the battlefield, how difficult is the check and set difficulty to 5/10/15/20 accordingly).

Secondly, they note that just because the PHB doesn't specify much about what casting a spell look like doesn't mean that every spell look alike during casting. Going the OOTS path, casting a non-subtle spell might even require saying the name of the spell or something that obvious. And for spells using a material component, you can probably see them too.
=> Just because you can do a Nature check as an action to identify a plant doesn't mean you always need to take an action to make a Nature check to identify a plant, and you might recognise some of the at first glance. Similarly, a lot of spells might be recognisable at first glance during casting by a veteran adventurer. For example, if you saw this exact same spell being cast recently, you're probably able to recognise it at first glance.

Alternatively, even if the spell itself might be too complex to identify at first glance, maybe secondary informations, like "who is targetted by the spell" or even simpler "is the spell targetted on Self or on other creatures" are accessible before choosing to counterspell or not.

[Chronic]

I'd argue that there is no reason to let a player know in advance the spell casted, it's one of the balance point of counterspell. It pushes the players to make a choice of expanding a ressources or not, and as someone else pointed, no useless spell is casted anyway. Counterspell is a semi gamble and is gmfine as is balance wise.

[Gtdead]

I want to give one reason why I don't mind Xanathar's rule, and one why I do mind.


Why I don't mind:

Assume for a moment that you are facing an Archmage. This is a CR 12 encounter. However the archmage defensively is CR 4-5.
If the archmage drops Meteor Swarm, you get the full CR 12 experience and then some.
If he doesn't, you basically need to deal enough damage to beat a CR4-5 monster, which should be trivial for most parties.

When you cast counterspell, you ensure that you will face the second scenario. You don't need to know if you counterspelled the big bad spell, a medium one like conjure elemental or firebolt. You only need to know that you transformed a CR12 enemy into a CR4.


Why I mind:

I have considerable experience in MMORPGs and I am mostly a PvP oriented guy. While these days this isn't an issue, back in the day we didn't have mods that told us what spell was being cast by the enemy. A lot of spells had exactly the same visual effects and in PvP you actually have to guess which spells are going to be cast before you even see the visual.

A good player will know what spell is going to be cast with over 90% certainty. In fact, most of the time, if you guess wrong, it means that the enemy made a mistake that you can exploit. Additionally, the window to interrupt the spell is extremely small, usually around 1-1.5 seconds at most, although there was probably some lag correction, but that's beside the point. It's a very complicated reaction. It needs the player to analyze the situation, make an educated guess and be quick enough to perform the interruption.

Knowing this and having done it myself for years, I can't even fathom how a sufficiently knowledgeable adventurer wouldn't instinctively know at least some information about a spell being cast. A good player may be able to metagame and make an educated guess, but the character himself should instinctively draw some conclusions.

[Doug Lampert]

Knowing this and having done it myself for years, I can't even fathom how a sufficiently knowledgeable adventurer wouldn't instinctively know at least some information about a spell being cast. A good player may be able to metagame and make an educated guess, but the character himself should instinctively draw some conclusions.

This. The player is ALWAYS information starved compared to the character. The character can see, hear, smell, feel, and possibly even taste the environment. The player gets a short impromptu description of an imaginary scene from someone who's probably not all that good at describing stuff.

The character knows roughly how good his attack was, and roughly how close he came to hitting, and yet there are GMs out there who get bent out of shape if the player says, "If that missed then the monster has an armor class of at least 18, try a non-attack spell" and will bizarrely try to claim that this is metagaming!?!

For a caster, the character has spent years studying the ways of magic, whatever is involved in casting spells, he has through study and effort managed to master it to a degree that few ever reach (he's got level 3 spell slots to burn on counter-spell, seriously, this is great compared to the presumed population average). But he's somehow not supposed to be able to tell if the guy 30' away, loudly and clearly speaking magic words and making gestures is throwing a meteor swarm, fireball, or firebolt?!?

In practice, the optional rule only makes a difference if there are lots of minor low-level mages in your high-level encounters, because, as has been pointed out, the high-level characters will always be casting something worth countering. But even then it's an annoying rule that depends on there not being any way your wizard can recognize the difference between the apprentice and the arch-mage so he won't know which one is worth countering.

[KorvinStarmast]

And to be fair, I feel Glamour adds more to my build than Lore. But I have no experience playing outside of Tier 1 so I do not know how crucial Counterspell is for a group. Who else is in your group? My experiences in Tier 2, and in tier 3 and 4, is that Counterspell goes up in value the higher in the game you go. Stopping a feeblemind spell cast at you, or your party (I only found out afterwards from the DM) is a substantial good deal for the party.
Lore gets 3 skills and Cutting Words, while Glamour gets Enthralling Performance and Mantle of Inspiration. Thematically, Glamour all the way here and mechanically I would edge it past Lore as well. Cutting words stopping a hit can avoid a con check, can keep an ally in the fight ... lots of stuff. Have used it a lot in some battles, not at all in others. Once you recharge on a short rest CW gets to be a good choice with some frequency, and standard BI is always good.

With Jack of All Trades, extra skill profs aren't really needed.
Not true unless you have another skill monkey in the party. Our party doesn't have one, so my added proficiencies were really helpful, as was added expertise.

Cutting Words is amazing, but I do have Shield and AoA from Hexblade to mitigate the loss of Cutting Words. Mantle of Inspiration got stronger after DM ruled AoO happen when you enter a hostile space. Once again, we see what a bad idea Hexblade was as a patron. (This is a pet peeve of mine, you do you and have a grand time :smallsmile: ).

Lore hands down here. Early Magical Secrets is so strong. Yep.

Peerless Skill vs. Unbreakable Majesty. Glamour hands down here. I feel like I will always have better uses for my bardic dice then maybe passing a skill check with Peerless Skill. Meanwhile once per rest, my character will be near unhittable for a concentrationless minute? One of the best subclass capstones in the game imo. Must agree. I do now and again use that level 14 skill boost, but it's very situational. That Glamour feature is sweet.

When played correctly, it's really not a very good spell since you can't plan around it effectively, and you won't miss out on much by skipping it. We play it like that and you are, based on my at table experience, Dead wrong.
In multiple one shots in Tier 3, and in three different campaigns through Tier 3, Counterspell has been a great tool to negate an enemy attempt to cast a spell. Granted, it now and again misses if the enemy spell is really high and you don't make the roll, but, FWIW, my Lore bard has had very, very few unsuccessful counterspells and my warlock has never missed the roll. (Though she's not the only one with the spell in that group).

The player knows the spell being countered before casting, so they know if it's a good use of the slot or not. Nope. We never did that. Counterspell is very good. Grod covered why.

NPC spellcasters are fragile; they (and more importantly, the GM) only have a small window of opportunity to make a difference. Combine with the fact that they won't have to make it through a half-dozen encounters before they can take a long rest, and they're almost certainly not going to waste time casting Fire Bolt or Expeditious Retreat-- they'll go straight to the big guns and throw out a Fireball or Wall of Force or something. Yep.

gonna throw in my support for the 'its a good spell, but not mandatory'. Best post on this topic. :smallsmile: I have also played casters without it and they did fine.

[ad_hoc]

This. The player is ALWAYS information starved compared to the character. The character can see, hear, smell, feel, and possibly even taste the environment. The player gets a short impromptu description of an imaginary scene from someone who's probably not all that good at describing stuff.


The caster could be 60ft away through allies and enemies with the roar of battle all around. The PC is dodging enemy blows and casting their own spells.

In such a case a player has a lot more information than the character would have. It would be completely reasonable for a DM to rule that the character doesn't notice the casting in time or to roll for it.

[MoiMagnus]

The caster could be 60ft away through allies and enemies with the roar of battle all around. The PC is dodging enemy blows and casting their own spells.

In such a case a player has a lot more information than the character would have. It would be completely reasonable for a DM to rule that the character doesn't notice the casting in time or to roll for it.

It is right that for the characters, there is a major difference between "the Archmage, our assassination target, and most powerful foe on the battlefield, is casting a spell" and "one of the cultists 60fts away is casting a spell while we're busy dealing with a Balrog". In the latter, the cultist can probably make a stealth check with advantage to cast their spell without being noticed ... assuming making a stealth check to cast without being noticed is acceptable at your table.

[Kane0]

Xanathars spell identification is optional, and I dont use it. That doesnt mean i havent read it, nor am I right or wrong for doing so.

Some optional rules I like, others I dont.

[Gtdead]

It is right that for the characters, there is a major difference between "the Archmage, our assassination target, and most powerful foe on the battlefield, is casting a spell" and "one of the cultists 60fts away is casting a spell while we're busy dealing with a Balrog". In the latter, the cultist can probably make a stealth check with advantage to cast their spell without being noticed ... assuming making a stealth check to cast without being noticed is acceptable at your table.

While this is fair, in practice you really don't care about the cultist. It doesn't matter if you know what he is casting or not, if a more scary caster exists in range, then you'd rather keep your reaction available. This works exactly the same in the MMO PvP scenarios I was talking about earlier. Counterspell is on a cooldown. If you interrupt the wrong thing then you made a mistake and the enemy is free to cast whatever he likes till you get it back, forcing you to use other abilities (if applicable) to interrupt him, abilities that could be used in a more optimal fashion. And yes, it's possible to guess what multiple enemies are going to cast. In WoW for example, once you see a Mage, you expect a Frost Nova, or if you see a treeform druid you expect healing. It's not too hard if you have sufficient experience. The difficulty would be in being good enough mechanically to react fast and interrupt them.

I could think of ways to imitate this limitation in game but I think they would be to tedious, like for example declaring who your counterspell focus is and rolling against everyone else with disadvantage or not at all depending on distance. I wouldn't want to play with that rule.

[ad_hoc]

It is right that for the characters, there is a major difference between "the Archmage, our assassination target, and most powerful foe on the battlefield, is casting a spell" and "one of the cultists 60fts away is casting a spell while we're busy dealing with a Balrog". In the latter, the cultist can probably make a stealth check with advantage to cast their spell without being noticed ... assuming making a stealth check to cast without being noticed is acceptable at your table.

It is entirely reasonable for the DM to just rule that the character doesn't notice in time even if it is the archmage.

Characters don't have perfect attention all around them at all times. Running it that way does make counterspell more powerful.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is entirely reasonable for the DM to just rule that the character doesn't notice in time even if it is the archmage. Another place to apply passive Perception or Passive Arcana as a tool.

[Psyren]

I'm not a fan of the Xanathar ruling either. Note that it IS still possible to know what you're counterspelling even with that rule - you just need two characters/reactions, one to identify the spellcast and the other to counterspell it. Both reactions occur before the spell goes off. Some groups may want this kind of teamwork in order to protect a caster's counterspell from being wasted on something inconsequential, but for me, counterspell otherwise being a complete shot in the dark for even the most experienced or talented archmage doesn't make much sense.

I'd say there is middle ground between accepting and rejecting the Xanathar's rule wholesale - your DM can have it be the default, and then create a custom feat that allows the caster to identify spells (or perhaps just one spell) per round without needing their reaction.

[Kane0]

I'm not a fan of the Xanathar ruling either. Note that it IS still possible to know what you're counterspelling even with that rule - you just need two characters/reactions, one to identify the spellcast and the other to counterspell it. Both reactions occur before the spell goes off. Some groups may want this kind of teamwork in order to protect a caster's counterspell from being wasted on something inconsequential, but for me, counterspell otherwise being a complete shot in the dark for even the most experienced or talented archmage doesn't make much sense.

I'd say there is middle ground between accepting and rejecting the Xanathar's rule wholesale - your DM can have it be the default, and then create a custom feat that allows the caster to identify spells (or perhaps just one spell) per round without needing their reaction.

The check part is fine, previous editions have done that and it worked, it's the reaction part that I object to since it interferes with other uses for your reaction (Counterspell in this case, but also things like Shield, Absorb Elements, Beguiling Defences, Projected Ward, Arcane Deflection, Cutting Words, etc) and is a double edged sword that potentially stops you from knowing what your allies are casting, but it can also be circumvented in both cases by savvy players anyways. Just better to have it as a passive or check that doesn't use your reaction or in my case just announce spells and do away with the minigame entirely.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not a fan of the Xanathar ruling either. Note that it IS still possible to know what you're counterspelling even with that rule - you just need two characters/reactions, one to identify the spellcast and the other to counterspell it. Both reactions occur before the spell goes off. Some groups may want this kind of teamwork I do not play at any table where any of the players could pull off that kind of teamwork - save one group - but on line play may be the core obstacle here. I can see how in person play and a decently engaged group could establish that kind of teamwork/synergy.

[Foolwise]

Who else is in your group?

Vuman Life Cleric/Fighter - took HAM for feat, was initially going to be War Domain, but I think he decided to be a more dedicated healer with our new players in the group, not sure how many levels of fighter he is going
Dwarf Beast Barbarian - new player, pretty straight forward build
Half Elf Moon Druid - new player, has only wild shaped so far, not sure if he has even looked at his spells, took Skill Versatility and has some overlap with my skills
Half Drow Hexblade 2/Glamour Bard - I took Drow Magic over Skill Versatility. I'll still have the face role locked down once Expertise kicks in.

[Greywander]

It seems to me that the reaction to determine what kind of spell is being cast could be sidestepped by introducing a new kind of action: an awareness action (or something). If you don't use an awareness action, you maintain a general awareness of the entire battlefield, but when you do use an awareness action, it essentially blocks you from seeing anything else that might be going on. For example, you might not get a perception check against someone taking the Hide action. If a second mage casts a spell, you might not even be aware that a spell is being cast. Stuff like that. Using an awareness action would basically focus your attention on one specific thing in order to get more info on that thing, but the trade-off is that it limits your awareness of anything else that might be going on around you.

If we introduced this new type of action, we could also add new ways to use it, such as searching an enemy for a weak spot, or noticing anything unusual about that enemy. Or checking something in the environment, like checking to see if a pillar or tree might be able to be knocked over before you waste an action trying to do so.

[Psyren]

Definitely not a fan of an "awareness action." I'd prefer to start from the assumption that heroes are aware of their surroundings unless an enemy is able to successfully conceal something important from them, rather than them defaulting to unawareness until they do something.


The check part is fine, previous editions have done that and it worked, it's the reaction part that I object to since it interferes with other uses for your reaction (Counterspell in this case, but also things like Shield, Absorb Elements, Beguiling Defences, Projected Ward, Arcane Deflection, Cutting Words, etc) and is a double edged sword that potentially stops you from knowing what your allies are casting, but it can also be circumvented in both cases by savvy players anyways. Just better to have it as a passive or check that doesn't use your reaction or in my case just announce spells and do away with the minigame entirely.

For the record, I completely agree with removing the action cost entirely and making spell identification passive like it was in prior editions.

I was merely proposing a solution for a table that uses XGtE purely as written (coordinated reactions), as well as a compromise houserule (for GMs that want some kind of cost associated with spell identification.)

[Greywander]

Definitely not a fan of an "awareness action." I'd prefer to start from the assumption that heroes are aware of their surroundings unless an enemy is able to successfully conceal something important from them, rather than them defaulting to unawareness until they do something.
You misread/misunderstood what I was saying. The assumption is that you maintain general awareness of the battlefield unless you use your awareness action, in which case you zero in your focus on that one specific thing.

[Kane0]

It seems to me that the reaction to determine what kind of spell is being cast could be sidestepped by introducing a new kind of action: an awareness action (or something). If you don't use an awareness action, you maintain a general awareness of the entire battlefield, but when you do use an awareness action, it essentially blocks you from seeing anything else that might be going on. For example, you might not get a perception check against someone taking the Hide action. If a second mage casts a spell, you might not even be aware that a spell is being cast. Stuff like that. Using an awareness action would basically focus your attention on one specific thing in order to get more info on that thing, but the trade-off is that it limits your awareness of anything else that might be going on around you.

If we introduced this new type of action, we could also add new ways to use it, such as searching an enemy for a weak spot, or noticing anything unusual about that enemy. Or checking something in the environment, like checking to see if a pillar or tree might be able to be knocked over before you waste an action trying to do so.

I remember someone a while ago proposed a similar thing revolving around Passive skill scores. Basically each character picks one passive to be using at any given time, and can change it around on their turn. Passive Perception is the default and is used for detecting creatures attempting to hide, but other options included Investigation as an analogue for detecting environmental details, the INT skills for IDing creatures and their abilities, etc. The sort of things that are sometimes called out as an action or reaction in this way don't eat that up while you're trying to do your normal thing in combat, and each character having a different passive spreads it around than just giving everyone passive scores for most/all skills.

[Snails]

Often it doesn't matter. No one wastes a turn casting a pointless spell, so you have to assume that whatever spell they're casting is intended to ruin your day. If you're baiting someone to Counterspell a cantrip, then the fight will be over before they've run out of slots for Counterspell, and you'll be dead. Trading your action for the enemy's reaction is not a good trade, but the reverse is a great trade.

I agree, but let us consider what you wrote very carefully.

Yes, it is true that the DM knows almost every enemy NPC has a very short expiry date, so they will go in guns blazing. Spending a Reaction and 3rd level slot to stop the enemy spell is 99% likely to be worth it.

For the reverse, it can be worthwhile "baiting" the enemy spellcaster with a cantrip for the sake of resource management over the adventuring day. If I can catch 5+ enemies with a Fireball, I am going to ram that dang Fireball through by Counterspelling the Counterspell. Two 3rd level slots to inflict >100 points of total damage is a good enough deal. But when the targets are less tempting, Firebolt to entice the Counterspell may be good enough. This is especially true in a party with multiple spellcasters -- bait the Counterspell and your allies have free reign, while you save you slots for the next fight.

[Greywander]

I agree, but let us consider what you wrote very carefully.

Yes, it is true that the DM knows almost every enemy NPC has a very short expiry date, so they will go in guns blazing. Spending a Reaction and 3rd level slot to stop the enemy spell is 99% likely to be worth it.

For the reverse, it can be worthwhile "baiting" the enemy spellcaster with a cantrip for the sake of resource management over the adventuring day. If I can catch 5+ enemies with a Fireball, I am going to ram that dang Fireball through by Counterspelling the Counterspell. Two 3rd level slots to inflict >100 points of total damage is a good enough deal. But when the targets are less tempting, Firebolt to entice the Counterspell may be good enough. This is especially true in a party with multiple spellcasters -- bait the Counterspell and your allies have free reign, while you save you slots for the next fight.
That's true, but it's contingent on you surviving the current encounter. Some encounters aren't especially dangerous, so throwing out a couple cantrips should be fine, especially if you're anticipating more difficult encounters later on. But surviving the current encounter always has higher priority than conserving resources for future encounters that may or may not happen.

As far as baiting Counterspell, yes, when the enemy doesn't know what you're casting and they have to make a snap decision, you might be able to get away with casting a cantrip to provoke a Counterspell from them. But especially in the situation you proposed where you have multiple spellcasters, you don't know who the enemy is going to Counterspell, so you should all use your strongest spell in the hopes that someone will get through. Plus, from round 2 and onwards, the enemy will have a better assessment of which caster is the most dangerous. It's kind of like how tanking in D&D means making yourself enough of an actual threat to the enemy that they can't afford to ignore you; you have to make sure the your whole party is casting spells that are worth Counterspelling, and then the enemy will only be able to Counterspell one of those, allowing the rest to get through. If you only throw out one big spell, chances are that will be the one that gets Counterspelled.

[Gtdead]

As far as baiting Counterspell, yes, when the enemy doesn't know what you're casting and they have to make a snap decision, you might be able to get away with casting a cantrip to provoke a Counterspell from them.

I want to add to that that from the party's perspective, the enemy has infinite spells. A DM may not run it like that but technically, against any enemy with counterspell, your party caster can't cast anything. So baiting isn't really a great tactic because while sustainable, it doesn't affect the battle in any meaningful way.

Instead of baiting, the best tactic would be to leverage sight and cover, use spells that last for a long time so you can enter combat with them being active or get subtle somehow. Baiting is the same as getting counterspelled without losing your spell slots, which is fine, but you didn't do anything during your turn and you only wasted the enemy's reaction. It may be worth it if your party has 2 casters against a single caster enemy, but 1 for 1 it just doesn't worth it.

[tokek]

From a party perspective in what are usually short combats the only value of baiting out a counterspell is to use up the reaction so another party member can land their spell.

As for choosing counterspell I've found its one of those spells I rarely use but its game-changing when I use it. I had a tier-4 warlock who went several levels without using counterspell then when she used it against an archmage it was a total game-changer. Level 9 spell blocked, archmage never got another turn (they don't have enough HP to withstand angry fighter/warlock combos)

Honestly its my second most sought after choice for spellwrought tattoo (or scroll depending on class) now after revivify. Incredibly high impact but very rarely needed.

[Foolwise]

I hadn't thought of spell scrolls! My 2-level dip into warlock will give me access to Counterspell scrolls and with it being third level combined with Jack of All Trades, it shouldn't be too hard to overcome the DC to use it. And by level 12, I will have a firm understanding on how generous my DM is with providing access to scrolls.

[Gtdead]

There is some odd interaction between scrolls and spells not cast during your turn. You need to read the scroll, which means you need to hold it and it may create some conflict with free hands etc. I don't think it's going to be a problem, just make sure to check with your DM how he wants to run it.

For scrolls cast on your turn you can just use your free object interaction so that's not a problem.

[Psyren]

You misread/misunderstood what I was saying. The assumption is that you maintain general awareness of the battlefield unless you use your awareness action, in which case you zero in your focus on that one specific thing.

I agree that this method would decouple a character's spell identification from their limited reaction, which is good, but this solution is still not appealing to me conceptually.

What my character, an experienced combatant who is frequently in life-or-death situations, is aware of or able to focus on may not match what I the player think of to focus on. It also implies that such a character can only focus on one thing at a time. So personally I'd rather just resolve this kind of thing with ability checks (passive if run by the DM, or active if called for by the DM), and have my character's ability to focus be governed more by their proficiencies and attributes rather than my conscious direction as the player.



For scrolls cast on your turn you can just use your free object interaction so that's not a problem.

Free object interaction can be used to retrieve a scroll, but I think you'd need an action to actually use it (DMG 139).

[Gtdead]

Free object interaction can be used to retrieve a scroll, but I think you'd need an action to actually use it (DMG 139).

There has been an errata that changes the text to not strictly require an action.
https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf

[KorvinStarmast]

I remember someone a while ago proposed a similar thing revolving around Passive skill scores.
Basically each character picks one passive to be using at any given time, and can change it around on their turn.
Passive Perception is the default and is used for detecting creatures attempting to hide, but other options included Investigation as an analogue for detecting environmental details, the INT skills for IDing creatures and their abilities, etc. The sort of things that are sometimes called out as an action or reaction in this way don't eat that up while you're trying to do your normal thing in combat, and each character having a different passive spreads it around than just giving everyone passive scores for most/all skills. I like that idea, but I guess it's not in any official material yet. (And I ponder on the use of passive stealth shenanigans if there's a rogue in the party :smallbiggrin: )

For the OP:


Vuman Life Cleric/Fighter - took HAM for feat, was initially going to be War Domain, but I think he decided to be a more dedicated healer with our new players in the group, not sure how many levels of fighter he is going.

Dwarf Beast Barbarian - new player, pretty straight forward build

Half Elf Moon Druid - new player, has only wild shaped so far, not sure if he has even looked at his spells, took Skill Versatility and has some overlap with my skills.
{{My note: this is a full caster, I suggest that you offer a bit of coaching/mentoring on using his spells. There are quite a few good once on the Druid list).

{OP} Half Drow Hexblade 2/Glamour Bard - I took Drow Magic over Skill Versatility. I'll still have the face role locked down once Expertise kicks in.

If you were a Lore Bard, Counterspell at Bard 6 via magical secrets would be a nice complement to this party, but given the number of spell casters you have, and your party's versatility (I think you all have a very nice mix there) I'd not say that it is required.
If you can wait for level 12 (Bard level 10) you can pick up counterspell then. As I said above, in Tier 3 play I used it A Lot. Not sure how far you campaign will go, though.

[Psyren]

There has been an errata change that changes the text to not strictly require an action.
https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf

Right - but that errata actually makes it worse, because they moved it from being an action to being the spell's casting time. For most spells that's still an action, for some that's a bonus action or reaction, and for some that's even longer than an action. In all cases, it's not a free object interaction, unless there is a spell that uses that as its casting time which I don't believe currently exists.

[Gtdead]

Right - but that errata actually makes it worse, because they moved it from being an action to being the spell's casting time. For most spells that's still an action, for some that's a bonus action or reaction, and for some that's even longer than an action. In all cases, it's not a free object interaction, unless there is a spell that uses that as its casting time which I don't believe currently exists.

I'm confused. I didn't say that you use the object interaction action to use the scroll. I said that you use it to pull it out of the bag. Something that you can't do during another's turn so you need to constantly hold it in your hand if you want to use a reaction spell.

I don't think there is any conflict here with the rules. As for the pre-errata version, the way I read it is that you use the action to read the scroll, then the spell is cast according to the description. You didn't get to change an 1 hour cast into an 1 action cast.

Did I misunderstand your point?

[Psyren]

I'm confused. I didn't say that you use the object interaction action to use the scroll. I said that you use it to pull it out of the bag.

Got it, that was the part I was confused on (which I stated in my first reply to you:)



Free object interaction can be used to retrieve a scroll, but I think you'd need an action to actually use it (DMG 139).

Since you did indeed mean retrieving it, we're on the same page now - thanks!

[tokek]

There is some odd interaction between scrolls and spells not cast during your turn. You need to read the scroll, which means you need to hold it and it may create some conflict with free hands etc. I don't think it's going to be a problem, just make sure to check with your DM how he wants to run it.

For scrolls cast on your turn you can just use your free object interaction so that's not a problem.

You do need to get it out ready for use. The tattoo is far better for that reason, if you can get the tattoo.

Both options are still better than not having the spell and both free up your magical secrets for something you will probably use a lot more often.

[Gtdead]

Got it, that was the part I was confused on (which I stated in my first reply to you:)



Since you did indeed mean retrieving it, we're on the same page now - thanks!

You are right, I reread it and it was indeed confusing. Good thing you mentioned it.


You do need to get it out ready for use. The tattoo is far better for that reason, if you can get the tattoo.

Both options are still better than not having the spell and both free up your magical secrets for something you will probably use a lot more often.

It's a smart solution, after all CS is a very powerful but situational spell. I tend to dismiss the possibility of lvl 3+ spell consumables due to cost/workweek requirements but it's a possibility that we should always keep in our mind.

[Foolwise]

If you were a Lore Bard, Counterspell at Bard 6 via magical secrets would be a nice complement to this party, but given the number of spell casters you have, and your party's versatility (I think you all have a very nice mix there) I'd not say that it is required.
If you can wait for level 12 (Bard level 10) you can pick up counterspell then. As I said above, in Tier 3 play I used it A Lot. Not sure how far you campaign will go, though.

I'm not sure how far the campaign will last either. But I enjoy character building, and would rather be prepared than caught flat-footed because I was expecting the group to lose interest before we reached higher levels. And I am pretty willing to adapt my character as needed.

This character was originally my backup in case I didn't like any changes made to the Ascendant Dragon monk.... so yeah.

So she was going to be an Eilistraeean sword dancer, which was fun trying to fit that theme into 5e. Went from Bladesinger/Twilight Cleric to Swords Bard with a Divine Sorc dip. Then I learned the campaign was in Greyhawk where Eilistraee has no presence.

So no Goddess to receive powers from, I switched my Divine Sorc dip to Hexblade. The few warlock spells I have are refluffed to fit Eilistraee- Eldritch Blast is Magic Missile, its crackling energy portrays how hard it is for the goddess to transfer her power to a realm she doesn't inhabit, especially when the Magic Missile misses! The icy coating of Armor of Agathys is now the cold aura of Eilistraee's Moonfire. Since my connection to Eilistraee comes from the Hexblade, I don't plan on refluffing any of my Bard spells, except perhaps my Magical Secrets picks.

A true caster was needed instead of everyone being melee focused, so College of Swords needed to change. My character's goal is to spread the word of Eilistraee and with the Entertainer background, performing sword dances is her ticket. Here is where I feel Glamour Bard fits nicely. My character can become a diva, performing under the stage name Eilistraee. It also gives the party a source of cover as they are members of my traveling troupe. Lore could also work, but Glamour synergizes too well.

As she gains in levels, and her familiarity with the Eilistraeean moon-touched hexblade improves. I may return her to a more melee focus especially after Unbreakable Majesty comes online. At level 12, I am planning to use one of my Magical Secrets picks to grab Steel Wind Strike, so Counterspell is competing for the other pick.

And yes, all this theorycraft may prove pointless if the group fizzles out. But I am enjoying it, so the time is not wasted. And what started as a half drow dragon monk is now on path to become a realm-famous dancer! Can't wait to see where this character finally lands.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

I am the only party member with access to Counterspell via Bard's Magical Secrets. I started Hexblade 2, but will go Bard the rest of the way. College of Glamour fits my theme best- basically becoming a world-reknown performer. But then I have to wait until level 12 for Counterspell. Going College of Lore gets Counterspell online at 8. Is that 4 level bump in access worth losing the synergy of Glamour with my build? Does a party need it? Should I even take it?

I ran a similar build, Hex 2 Eloquence Bard 18(+). In my experience you do not need counterspell as your first magical secret-- Silence is almost as effective, more effective in some ways. There are very few 'absolutely must stop this NOW' spells without a vocal component, and boxing a caster into a 20' circle at the level of your first magic secret isn't usually impossible if you have a good party comp. Taking Find Greater Steed instead allows you to have a grappling flying monster that can usually keep a caster pinned into the silence area, and since you two communicate telepathically the silence doesn't really affect it on your side. If you want a magic nullifying spell, I personally find Dispel Magic to be more generally useful than counterspell, especially if you aren't in a dungeon, since a bunch of spells can be fired off from beyond range of counterspell... notably Silence. Plus it has other uses as well. Really I don't think you need Counterspell necessarily at all, if you have ways to exploit silence and visibility requirements (IE a bunch of spells won't be able to do anything to a HexBard in a Devil Sight + Darkness combo as he is not in line of sight to the caster). I took it for one level of magical secrets and traded it out for Soul Cage, and never felt like we were losing out, even though nobody else had counterspell. Slow/Silence to me are just as good if not better in most cases, especially if you only have one full caster since the enemy caster will be able to out-reaction your Counterspell.

Also--- Steel Wind Strike mechanically is pretty garbage. I think you'll be pretty disappointed with it. It doesn't really do anything that Psychic Scream or Animate Objects can't do DPS wise, in fact it's usually quite a bit worse. You can flavor that as you just throwing 10 tiny throwing knives and slicing up everything for a minute. Spirit Guardians are really solid too, and can be flavored in the same way. As a Bard, your bonus action is probably pretty busy, so I can't really recommend spiritual weapon, and the DPS kinda sucks anyway. As you progress to tier 3-4 you're going to need to branch out into hardcore control, as a BUNCH of creatures at that level are straight up immune to charmed and similar effects. So it's pretty important that your early magic secrets don't lose power as a bunch of your class features start losing combat utility due to monster resistances at high levels.

[Witty Username]

Just go glamour it will be fun.

[MrCharlie]

I am the only party member with access to Counterspell via Bard's Magical Secrets. I started Hexblade 2, but will go Bard the rest of the way. College of Glamour fits my theme best- basically becoming a world-reknown performer. But then I have to wait until level 12 for Counterspell. Going College of Lore gets Counterspell online at 8. Is that 4 level bump in access worth losing the synergy of Glamour with my build? Does a party need it? Should I even take it?
Counterspell is one of those spells that is only relevant if the group has established it's own caster meta around it. If, as the first person to pick it, you're not certain-don't worry about it.

Ironically, it would be more necessary if you had three other people with counterspell in your party, as your DM would be more likely to include his own counterspellers-resulting in you getting counterspelled without a way to counter the counterspell.

(I.E. Begun, the counterspell wars have.)

But without that precedent, counterspell will show up rarely and usually at the hands of an enemy wizard-which can usually be dealt with by clever tactics, positioning, or brute force. The DM won't go through the trouble of, say, giving a spellcasting Dragon counterspell, or adding a drow mage to their drow matron mother encounter solely for counterspell, or some other more esoteric counter-measure. If the party spammed counterspells they would start having to come up with these countermeasures-which is where counterspell, ironically, becomes required. It's like MAD, the winning move is not to play.

[Second Wind]

I want to add to that that from the party's perspective, the enemy has infinite spells. A DM may not run it like that but technically, against any enemy with counterspell, your party caster can't cast anything. So baiting isn't really a great tactic because while sustainable, it doesn't affect the battle in any meaningful way.
Yeah, enemy caster stat blocks usually have too many spell slots for a single encounter. They could be designed around limited resources by giving them fewer slots (say, one slot per level) but they usually get the same number as a PC caster would.