removing counterspell and antimagic field

[rel]

If I remove the spells counterspell and antimagic field from the game does anything break?

[Sulicius]

If I remove the spells counterspell and antimagic field from the game does anything break?

Probably less things break than before.

Do it.

You might break some forum poster’s *immersion*.

[rel]

You might break some forum poster’s *immersion*.

Eh, I'm already wanted by roleplay police in 12 systems for banning feats, multiclassing, items and spells that add +numbers, and any content published after 2014.
I don't think I'll be convincing the internet that I'm not playing the game wrong any time soon.

[Crucius]

I doubt anything will break. I had an unspoken agreement with my players that we both wouldn't pick up counterspell, and I think it improved fun for all involved.

In another game where I played instead of DM'ed, counterspell was mandatory apparently and it showed in the fun people were having (that is to say; less). Nothing like a feature arbitrarily saying nope to your entire action, unless you partake in the arms race, and you get silly counterspell stacking (I think for one fireball there were 4 counterspells cast, 2 from the enemies and 2 from the PCs).

The only thing to watch out for is that as a DM, having an antimagic field is a very useful tool to have in your arsenal, mostly in social situations, where a single spell could 'ruin' the challenge you had prepared ('ruin' here being a subjective term of course, as creative use of spells is its own reward)

[kingcheesepants]

Getting rid of counterspell makes enemy casters stronger and lets your players not have to worry about being counterspelled, which overall I think is good. Getting rid of Anti-magic field makes casters just overall stronger and lets players not have to worry about getting their magic items etc taken away suddenly. I'm not sure I've ever seen a player use anti-magic field, that's generally speaking a DM spell that gets thrown in to make certain adventures more difficult for players and force them to adapt to losing powers and engage with the puzzles etc without just being able to teleport to the end or what have you. If you're fine with getting rid of that as a tool for yourself than by all means.

[Sindal]

I doubt anything breaks
Magic just becomes more prominent. Depending on what you enjoy this is either good or bad for uou but ultimately changes little in the greater scheme

[Chronos]

If you're going this route, you might also want to consider doing away with Silence: The vast majority of spells require a verbal component, so Silence ends up being, in practice, a poor man's anti-magic field.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

If I remove the spells counterspell and antimagic field from the game does anything break?

As long as you tell your players before having them drive out then meh.

What are your goals? Removing Counterspell makes the game more simple. One example is removing Counterspell reduces competition for reactions in some busy sub classes like Lore Bards

[follacchioso]

Counterspell has been effectively removed already, as most of the monsters in MotM have magical abilities that work precisely like spells, but are not spells for the purpose of counterspelling.

In a world where most characters can cast at least one spell or two, with many intelligent wizards around, I would find it strange to know that nobody has developed ways to defend from spells.

[Black Jester]

It is probably a bad idea to remove a tactical option that allows you to challenge a player character without requiring to outright kill them. After all, you owe it to your layers to play their opponents as clever and resourceful as they are supposed to be, and within the typical D&D setting, the immanent threat a mage poses is probably very, very obvious. There is a reason why "kill the wizard first" is almost a cliche stratagem. Targeting spellcasting as an ability instead of spellcasters as a character allows for more nuance and lower lethality. Without that option, the logical consequence would imply a lot more concentrated attacks on those characters who tend to have worse Armor and low hit points... you are going to remove a tactical puzzle, replacing it with more death saves, or insult your player's intelligence and resourcefulness by pulling punches and playing their opponent's as less of a threat.

[Sulicius]

Counterspell has been effectively removed already, as most of the monsters in MotM have magical abilities that work precisely like spells, but are not spells for the purpose of counterspelling.

In a world where most characters can cast at least one spell or two, with many intelligent wizards around, I would find it strange to know that nobody has developed ways to defend from spells.

All of those monsters still cast spells.

[Kvess]

If you're going this route, you might also want to consider doing away with Silence: The vast majority of spells require a verbal component, so Silence ends up being, in practice, a poor man's anti-magic field.

Or blindness, darkness, fog cloud, silent image, any effect that breaks line of sight...

[Mastikator]

Oath of Redemption gets counterspell as one of their 3rd level oath spells, they would need to get something else. Dispel magic seems like an obvious pick to me.

If you remove stuff from the game you create holes, you have to plug those holes or it will indeed be broken.

[MrStabby]

Oath of Redemption gets counterspell as one of their 3rd level oath spells, they would need to get something else. Dispel magic seems like an obvious pick to me.

If you remove stuff from the game you create holes, you have to plug those holes or it will indeed be broken.

Also you screw abjuration wizards and any other class thay typically gets bonuses to counterspell (fiend pact warlock, bard etc.). Not to say you shouldn't do it, but be mindful of that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Also you screw abjuration wizards and any other class thay typically gets bonuses to counterspell (fiend pact warlock, bard etc.). Not to say you shouldn't do it, but be mindful of that.

War Wizard would effectively lose their 6th level class feature, even if you kept Dispel Magic its application is actually very limited.

It's not a big loss, their 6th level feature is pretty bad, but it might steer off the small handful of people that would persevere through that for the much more powerful 10th level feature.


All of those monsters still cast spells.
Significantly fewer of them and typically with better non-spell options. It's not hyperbole to say that Counterspell is having its value severely diminished because of that.

[brainface]

If you're going this route, you might also want to consider doing away with Silence: The vast majority of spells require a verbal component, so Silence ends up being, in practice, a poor man's anti-magic field.

I actually think a poor version of anti-magic field is interesting for its flaws! You're basically saying "this part of spell casting fails, if you find some way around it, good on you." Whereas anti-magic field just feels like DM Fiat appeared as an NPC.

Ditto darkness fog cloud etc as the other poster mentioned, they're not big NOPE signs they're obstacles to be overcome.

[Sulicius]

Oath of Redemption gets counterspell as one of their 3rd level oath spells, they would need to get something else. Dispel magic seems like an obvious pick to me.

If you remove stuff from the game you create holes, you have to plug those holes or it will indeed be broken.

If you remove two spells from the game, you just play the game without those two spells. Nothing actually breaks, I would dare say the game might be better without AMF. Just imagine a game where none of the players can cast those spells or chose to cast those spells. The game is still fun. Nothing in the game relies on the spells counterspell or anti-magic field to be fun. You would obviously keep it on beholders as a description of their eye effect.


War Wizard would effectively lose their 6th level class feature, even if you kept Dispel Magic its application is actually very limited.

It's not a big loss, their 6th level feature is pretty bad, but it might steer off the small handful of people that would persevere through that for the much more powerful 10th level feature.


Significantly fewer of them and typically with better non-spell options. It's not hyperbole to say that Counterspell is having its value severely diminished because of that.

Counterspell is actually better, because no monsters can cast it in that book. And you're pretty wrong about the assumption that all of those spellcasters received spel-like abilities that are better than spells. Most actually keep their highest level spells, which are counterspell magnets.

[Mastikator]

If you remove two spells from the game, you just play the game without those two spells. Nothing actually breaks, I would dare say the game might be better without AMF. Just imagine a game where none of the players can cast those spells or chose to cast those spells. The game is still fun. Nothing in the game relies on the spells counterspell or anti-magic field to be fun. You would obviously keep it on beholders as a description of their eye effect.

You may not like Counterspell but it's a load bearing spell. Entire play styles, strategies and subclasses depend on it. You may think the game is better without it, but the game has a big hole in it and if you don't fill that hole with something else, you have broken the game.

Not to say a broken game can't be played or enjoyed, for example a lot of people really love 3.5e D&D and that game is a whole lotta broken.

My point only is this: just be sure to fix the holes you created by removing Counterspell. Even if you personally hate the spell, at least clean up the mess you create when you remove it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Counterspell is actually better, because no monsters can cast it in that book. And you're pretty wrong about the assumption that all of those spellcasters received spel-like abilities that are better than spells. Most actually keep their highest level spells, which are counterspell magnets.

No, they'll likely just be receiving a special counterspell reaction like Iggwilv, Vecna, Graz'zt or an Alhoon to name a small handful. You might notice, actually, that many reaction spells are gone from the lists and replaced with a not spell variant if they were replaced at all.

And I don't think I'm, wrong about this assumption, I don't think it's even an "assumption", we had a many pages long discussion about the limitations of these new designs and about creatures using this new design. A strong majority of them lost a significant amount of their spell casts per day, lost spells that aren't simple utility (everyone has Mage Hand but almost nobody has Magic Missile) and gained non-spell recharging or cantrip replacing options that do more damage and offer similar or identical utility to a spell.

I'm fairly confident that going forward players will continue to pick counterspell but perhaps after the 3rd, 4th or 5th time the DM is forced to say "sorry, it's actually not a spell" they're going to be switching it out at their next rest or level up if they can.

[KorvinStarmast]

Eh, I'm already wanted by roleplay police in 12 systems for banning feats, multiclassing, items and spells that add +numbers, and any content published after 2014.
I don't think I'll be convincing the internet that I'm not playing the game wrong any time soon. Counterspell is in the original spell list. There is no value added in removing it. Oath of the Watchers also has it on their Oath Spell list. Why hose them?

If you're going this route, you might also want to consider doing away with Silence: The vast majority of spells require a verbal component, so Silence ends up being, in practice, a poor man's anti-magic field. That's IMO just compounding an error.

If you remove stuff from the game you create holes, you have to plug those holes or it will indeed be broken. Might be why the OP is asking here to see what holes need plugging. :smallbiggrin:

Also you screw abjuration wizards and any other class thay typically gets bonuses to counterspell (fiend pact warlock, bard etc.). Not to say you shouldn't do it, but be mindful of that. Good point.

My recommendation: leave counterspell in the game. If you have enough encounters per adventure day, or if the encounters are hard enough, the choice to use a spell slot for that defensive reaction comes at a cost. In the five minute adventure day a great many assumptions break down.

AMF, if used sparingly, can create some tension in certain encounters, but I'll recommend against any permanent AMF zones.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Removing those spells are probably not going to break the game, but they are going to remove some defensive options from players who might be expecting them, and they are also likely to create situations wherein other spells that are normally balanced by them become more powerful. I would say a bigger question is what you want to accomplish with removing them.

[sithlordnergal]

Hmmm, removing Counterspell removes a defensive options from DMs and players, but I generally find one of two things happen with it. Either the DM and players agree to never use Counterspell, or its a race. That said, nothing is really broken by removing it. At most you should replace Counterspell on any Domain spell lists, like Redemption Paladins. Maybe give Abjuration Wizards a special Reaction they can use a number of times equal to their Proficiency Bonus that lets them emulate Counter Spell.

As for Antimagic Field, you won't remove much from the players, but you do remove a lot from a DM. I use Antimagic Fields a lot in combat encounters and traps. They can really increase the power of certain enemies by simply denying magic and magic items. Antimagic traps and rooms can also make for interesting puzzles where players need to figure things out via mundane means. Antimagic Fields basically allow you to use any trap that flight would normally let you bypass.

[MrStabby]

Counterspell is probably not great for the game, but removing it is probably a little more harm than good. Honestly, I can see arguments both ways on this.

Antimagic field on the other hand seems a harder case to remove. This is a really useful spell to have on a class like the cleric that has fewer good high level spells than most casters and helps keep the class out of pure healbot territory.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I think whether it breaks things depends on your table. I can see how at a high-optimization table Counter spell might become a tedious arms race. On the other hand, in the climactic battle of a previous campaign the BBEG would have locked me out of the battle with a Forcecage. But I got to feel like a badass archmage because I had AMF in my back pocket. "You'll have to do better than that."

[Fumble]

Never had counterspell used in any campaign I have been in. Only one time with ant magic shell back in 1e when Strahd cast it and just beat us to a pulp with his fists since it took magic weapons to hit him. But his 2 level life drain was taken away by the DM. We ended up diving out the window of our room and running away. He was used as an antagonist against us after ravenloft. Was fun as heck.

[Sulicius]

No, they'll likely just be receiving a special counterspell reaction like Iggwilv, Vecna, Graz'zt or an Alhoon to name a small handful. You might notice, actually, that many reaction spells are gone from the lists and replaced with a not spell variant if they were replaced at all.

And I don't think I'm, wrong about this assumption, I don't think it's even an "assumption", we had a many pages long discussion about the limitations of these new designs and about creatures using this new design. A strong majority of them lost a significant amount of their spell casts per day, lost spells that aren't simple utility (everyone has Mage Hand but almost nobody has Magic Missile) and gained non-spell recharging or cantrip replacing options that do more damage and offer similar or identical utility to a spell.

I'm fairly confident that going forward players will continue to pick counterspell but perhaps after the 3rd, 4th or 5th time the DM is forced to say "sorry, it's actually not a spell" they're going to be switching it out at their next rest or level up if they can.

Those are not “to name a a few”, those are THE ONLY new monsters able to do that. Out of of the 313 monsters in Witchlight and MoM, there are four who can cast such a spell, along with a DNDBeyond special. Either you are intentionally trying to exaggerate your point, or too lazy to find more.

Please tell me I am wrong and find one

The game does not need Counterspell to be fun. Have you played a session where no-one cast counterspell? Did you all decide the game was not worth playing?

And Antimagic Field?

I agree, some monsters lost spells that were important parts of how their strength was determined. I don’t care about that. I don’t lose out on a War Priest having 10+ spells for combat that all require concentration being removed from the stat block.

Counterspell is too powerful, and it makes spellcasters not worth to use as a DM. I’d rather see it cut up in different reactions that work with spells, or severely nerfed to be too niche to be on every optimizer’s spell list.

[SharkForce]

not sure about anti-magic field, but I have definitely planned to remove counterspell from the game next time I DM because personally I feel that it takes away more than it adds (when used by enemies - which it should be, because if the spell exists the enemies would have to be morons to *not* make extensive use of it unless there is a reason they absolutely can't - it just automatically denies PC actions which isn't really interesting or fun, it just points at one person and denies them the opportunity to participate. worse, those NPCs aren't *really* paying the resource cost for it because they're only in one fight anyways most of the time. when used by PCs, it tends to make powerful NPCs not have their proper effect... unless the NPCs use it, and then we're right back to not letting PCs do their thing because they can never match up to the NPCs that have a full day's worth of resources to burn on a single fight).

I have been considering allowing a readied dispel magic to prevent spells from working to see how that plays out, because at that point I think the higher costs (concentration, action and reaction) would make it far more situational. that said, I suspect the end result would be much the same as removing the effect entirely with no replacement.

never really considered antimagic field (I don't consider it to be as large of a problem because it prevents all magic rather than selectively allowing one person to cast spells while others can't), but I doubt that'll be too big of a deal to remove. globe of invulnerability would be the bigger concern to me.

as far as the negative impact on abjurers and war mages, I don't see it being a big thing. the war mage level 6 feature is basically already dead anyways, it's more or less a filler while you enjoy the level 2 awesome ability and wait for the level 10 awesome ability... I don't think anyone is taking war mage because they're looking forward to the level 6 ability. for abjurers, they've been getting some pretty good abilities anyways and I don't feel like they are lacking even without counterspell. if you feel *really* bad for them, I'd say make a replacement spell that grants someone advantage on their save as a reaction (one person, plus one per spell slot level?), and let abjurers get one extra target for free or something.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Those are not “to name a a few”, those are THE ONLY new monsters able to do that. Out of of the 313 monsters in Witchlight and MoM, there are four who can cast such a spell, along with a DNDBeyond special. Either you are intentionally trying to exaggerate your point, or too lazy to find more.

Please tell me I am wrong and find one
Strixhaven - Lorehold Professor of Order, Quandrix Professor of Theory

Yes, it's a small sample size, but spellcasting NPC are already not a huge representation of monster statblocks. This was already a niche interaction, why prevent the players from doing it and also set the precedent that an NPC can do it without the potential to be countered?


The game does not need Counterspell to be fun. Have you played a session where no-one cast counterspell? Did you all decide the game was not worth playing?
I've played several, but I've also played a session where a critical Counterspell was the only reasonable defense against what could have turned into a TPK. Counterspell saved our party from a Meteor Swarm twice. In the absence of Counterspell, we'd have had no opportunity to react or defend ourselves against this NPC and it would have been a "rocks fall the party dies" equivalent TPK. We prepared Counterspell because we knew that could happen.


And Antimagic Field?
It's a double edged sword strategy if you ask me, it's not something any party I've been a part of could use without dimishing their own effectiveness so, no, I haven't used it. It's been used against the party in one fashion or another, we've fought several Beholder.



Counterspell is too powerful, and it makes spellcasters not worth to use as a DM. I’d rather see it cut up in different reactions that work with spells, or severely nerfed to be too niche to be on every optimizer’s spell list.
Counterspell takes a high degree of investment to be a guaranteed defense against against spellcasting. In your original comment you cited high level spells as being Counterspell magnets, which is in part correct, but those higher level spells have a chance to overcome the Counterspell attempt or will cost an equal or greater resource of the players to be spent.

It's an insurance option, with a chance of failure, that might sit on a prepared spell list going unused for several sessions. Why is it so overpowered because every now and then a battle between spellcasters occurs and it sees its only effective use? Counterspell certainly isn't helping a Wizard combat any martial NPC, it's a niche tool to defend against a dangerous threat. I don't see much good reason to removing it other than not wanting the players to have this sort of option to defend themselves.

If there is a reasonable argument to be made against Counterspell, it's that it's the only accessible ability to defend yourself against spellcasting with a relatively low opportunity cost. It's a tax in the same way Revivify is, you really would rather not waste a preparation or known slot on it but you'll kick yourself when you don't.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Never had counterspell used in any campaign I have been in. Only one time with ant magic shell back in 1e when Strahd cast it and just beat us to a pulp with his fists since it took magic weapons to hit him. But his 2 level life drain was taken away by the DM. We ended up diving out the window of our room and running away. He was used as an antagonist against us after ravenloft. Was fun as heck.

OMG, when my Lore Bard first got Counterspell it was great. The first time I cast it was when our Wizard somehow got in a barfight and decided it was time to cast Fireball in the bar!

Next session some Vampire type bad guy was going to use a teleport spell to retreat from a close battle and maybe take one of us with him and GREATish, we had to fight him to the death.

Ah, fun with reactions.

[rel]

Thanks for all the replies so far, and keeping things civil :)

A few people asked for the design intent behind the proposed change
My players don't find being told their spell has been countered and their action wasted to be any fun.
Likewise, my players don't seem to enjoy expending spell slots keeping monsters from acting as much as they like throwing active spells.
And fights where the monsters do something flashy and the players have to struggle to deal with it seem to end up more fun than fights where the monsters are largely ineffectual.

some people asked about silence, darkness and the like
As someone already mentioned, those are less flat out denial and more challenges to be overcome. If nothing else, you know they are there and can in the worst case still take a turn doing something else, whereas counterspell just means you're action is wasted, try again next turn.

issues people found with counterspell being removed were
Oath of redemption and oath of watchers gets counterspell as a 3rd level oath spell
abjuration wizard, fiendpact warlock and bard get bonuses to counterspell
War Wizard loses part of the 6th level class feature
they will have to be replaced with other powers.

monsters with counterspell equivalent effects need to have them removed.

And a lack of counterspell makes spellcasting stronger in general, the most powerful signature spells might need to be re-balanced or defenses might need to be improved.

Consensus on antimagicfield seems to be
It's mostly a GM tool used to create puzzle encounters and memorable signature enemies, which is a compelling argument.
And unlike counterspell, its something you can (or if you can't you should be able to) see coming and chose different actions.
Perhaps curating its use rather than outright banning it is a better approach.
So you can have the beholder blocking magic with its main eye but avoid problems of dragons casting antimagic before the fight then flying off with the party wizard.

[Dame_Mechanus]

My players don't find being told their spell has been countered and their action wasted to be any fun.
Likewise, my players don't seem to enjoy expending spell slots keeping monsters from acting as much as they like throwing active spells.
And fights where the monsters do something flashy and the players have to struggle to deal with it seem to end up more fun than fights where the monsters are largely ineffectual.

So, to take it frame-by-frame it...

I realize this will doubtlessly sound a bit unusual given my usual stated philosophy for running games, but... well, no, it's not fun to have your spell countered. It's not supposed to be fun. It's supposed to be a moment when you have to change tactics or recognize that you might need a different approach depending on the source of the counterspell in the first place. Like, if you're a pure caster and the person countering isn't, you didn't really waste your action; they spent a spell slot to stop your spell slot, you're still winning on overall expenditure. Similarly, not enjoying having to spend slots defensively can be understandable, but that's also... part of how spell slots work in the first place. Every one is a resource spent to accomplish a task, and that task may be "preventing the enemy from casting."

But the last one in particular makes it sound like this isn't just a player thing but also a GM thing. You and your players are simpatico in the sense that you want a game in which players and NPCs do stuff without risk of either side just getting to toss down a "nope" card at any point. And you know what? That's totally valid.

My recommendation, then, would be not to remove either thing but just... not use it. Like, at least from your description, it sounds like your players are disinclined to use it at all so long as you basically agree to operate on a shared assumption that your players aren't going to seek it out and you're not going to make it mandatory. Leaving it in but having a tacit agreement of "we're not going to use this" has the benefit of ensuring that you can easily change your shared assumptions if magic gets out of hand and you need to re-adjust things again, to boot.

[follacchioso]

There is also the matter of whether Counterspell is used correctly.

Do you ask your players if they want to counterspell, before announcing what the spell is?

By RAW, a character would need to use a reaction to roll an Arcana check to understand what spell is being cast. This would use their Reaction, though, so they would not be able to cast Counterspell themselves. They would have to shout the spell name out loud, so another character in range could Counterspell.

This is fun when you play PvP, it becomes a sort of Poker game. But it becomes tedious and boring soon during a campaign.


All of those monsters still cast spells.It's been drastically reduced. Look at the Evoker Wizards, for example: they can cast an "Arcane Bust", which is the equivalent of a Cantrip, and "Sculpted Explosion", which is essentially a Fireball, but neither counts as spells for the purposes of Counterspell. They still have a few spells (wall of ice, lightning bolt, etc..) but it is a much shorter list compared to the previous entry.

[rel]

I've been looking through my PHB, and I can't find the bonuses fiendpact warlock and bard get to counterspell.
I don't have a lot of experience with either class so I'm probably missing something.
Can someone point me to the relevant rules?

[P. G. Macer]

I've been looking through my PHB, and I can't find the bonuses fiendpact warlock and bard get to counterspell.
I don't have a lot of experience with either class so I'm probably missing something.
Can someone point me to the relevant rules?

I can’t say for Fiend Pact off the top of my head, but for Lore Bards, Counterspell often requires an ability check, and thus is affected by Jack of All Trades. While technically all Bards are affected by this, they mentioned Lore Bards because it’s the only subclass where it’s really economical to pick up counterspell, thanks to Additional Magical Secrets. Lore Bards can also use Peerless Skill on a counterspell.

[Zuras]

If you want to remove some of the un-fun factor of counterspell without removing the ability to stop spells as they’re being cast, you can also change counterspell to an alternate use of Dispel Magic. Basically, counterspell no longer exists, but you can ready a Dispel Magic to cast when your opponent is casting a spell to counter it.

[Psyren]

A few people asked for the design intent behind the proposed change
My players don't find being told their spell has been countered and their action wasted to be any fun.
Likewise, my players don't seem to enjoy expending spell slots keeping monsters from acting as much as they like throwing active spells.
And fights where the monsters do something flashy and the players have to struggle to deal with it seem to end up more fun than fights where the monsters are largely ineffectual.


Have you tried the newer caster statblocks yet, like the ones from MotM? They seem geared at this very problem because they have numerous magic abilities that aren't spells and thus can't be counterspelled, and many of them are lacking counterspell themselves. But they also still have spells so that you're not denying or banning counterspell from your PCs entirely.

As for AMF, remember that the spell itself has a pretty short radius. So to truly cover a battlefield with it you have to fiat in some kind of magical anomaly, and account for that in the encounter's CR as you would any other unfavorable terrain, hazard, or phenomenon.

[sithlordnergal]

If you want to remove some of the un-fun factor of counterspell without removing the ability to stop spells as they’re being cast, you can also change counterspell to an alternate use of Dispel Magic. Basically, counterspell no longer exists, but you can ready a Dispel Magic to cast when your opponent is casting a spell to counter it.

I'm not sure it'd be worth it at that point. You're spending your Action, Reaction, Concentration, and Spell Slot in the hopes that an enemy might cast a spell. If they don't, then you've wasted your spell slot and action. Unless you changed it so Readying Dispel Magic was a Bonus Action, and didn't eat your spell slot or Concentration, then and only then would it be worth it.

Instead of using that, just leave Counterspell as is.

[MrStabby]

I've been looking through my PHB, and I can't find the bonuses fiendpact warlock and bard get to counterspell.
I don't have a lot of experience with either class so I'm probably missing something.
Can someone point me to the relevant rules?

So fiend pact at level 6 gets dark one's own luck that lets you add d10 to an ability check or saving throw once per short rest. Counterspell uses an ability check. Bard gets jack of all trades that adds half proficiency to all checks.

There are other more obscure bonuses that are probably niche - For example Fey Wanderer Ranger can add wisdom to charisma checks so if you stacked 3 levels of ranger on 5 levels of a charisma caster with counterspell then you could also add wisdom to those checks.

[Eldariel]

I'm not sure it'd be worth it at that point. You're spending your Action, Reaction, Concentration, and Spell Slot in the hopes that an enemy might cast a spell. If they don't, then you've wasted your spell slot and action. Unless you changed it so Readying Dispel Magic was a Bonus Action, and didn't eat your spell slot or Concentration, then and only then would it be worth it.

Instead of using that, just leave Counterspell as is.

Just make readied spells remain until you wanna unleash them. Hold charge like in earlier editions. And it CAN be worth it; this just makes it a situational strategy instead of default option. Counterspell has way too good action economy as it stands: it could afford to get knocked down a peg. This is basically how it worked in 3e and it was still occasionally very useful.

[Psyren]

Just make readied spells remain until you wanna unleash them. Hold charge like in earlier editions. And it CAN be worth it; this just makes it a situational strategy instead of default option. Counterspell has way too good action economy as it stands: it could afford to get knocked down a peg. This is basically how it worked in 3e and it was still occasionally very useful.

I'd argue it wasn't, because they kept printing ways to counterspell without going through any of the hoops you describe. Battlemagic Perception, Divine Defiance, Reactive Counterspell, Duelward, Master Abjurer, Ring of Counterspells, and that's before pointing out that the best "counterspell" in 3.5 actually had nothing to do with the counterspell action at all, but rather with forcing an impossible concentration check due to damage from a readied Twinmaxed Orb or something. Almost no optimized builds used counterspell in the normal "ready dispel magic and wait" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1058.html) way, because it isn't fun to stand around doing nothing.

[Eldariel]

I'd argue it wasn't, because they kept printing ways to counterspell without going through any of the hoops you describe. Battlemagic Perception, Divine Defiance, Reactive Counterspell, Duelward, Master Abjurer, Ring of Counterspells, and that's before pointing out that the best "counterspell" in 3.5 actually had nothing to do with the counterspell action at all, but rather with forcing an impossible concentration check due to damage from a readied Twinmaxed Orb or something. Almost no optimized builds used counterspell in the normal "ready dispel magic and wait" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1058.html) way, because it isn't fun to stand around doing nothing.

Obviously not. This being 3e, you could optimize it to make it a legitimate tactic and a key part of your overall strategy. But even the barebones counterspell action was something we ended up using a few times on characters not built for it (back in our first very unoptimized campaign; it was useful against higher level enemy casters when you had the action advantage and just needed to stop them from doing bull**** stuff): and it was way less gamewarping than the current Counterspell system which provides a ridiculous action economy advantage for successful counterspelling (Reaction for Action), meaning everyone is well-advised to play around it at all times.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Have you tried the newer caster statblocks yet, like the ones from MotM? They seem geared at this very problem because they have numerous magic abilities that aren't spells and thus can't be counterspelled, and many of them are lacking counterspell themselves. But they also still have spells so that you're not denying or banning counterspell from your PCs entirely.

As for AMF, remember that the spell itself has a pretty short radius. So to truly cover a battlefield with it you have to fiat in some kind of magical anomaly, and account for that in the encounter's CR as you would any other unfavorable terrain, hazard, or phenomenon.

While I don't like the new spell selection of the new caster statblocks, I do quite like the new actions each of them got (for the most part). Considering they can do crazy things without fear of counterspell, it's a good place to start. Take a caster's signature spell and tweak it into its own non-spell action.


As for AMF, how do you rule enemies that intrinsically have AMF or AMF-like abilities? Like... does a beholder's central eye still work, or would you have to sub it out for something else? Same with monsters like the Aeorian Nullifier. Do you just remove the spell from the innate spellcasting? If so, what's the "go to" replacement? The Nullifier, for example, can already dispel magic. Do you just not use enemies that are designed around AMF/AMF-like abilities?

[Psyren]

I'm not sure I understand the question. If I'm using a Beholder, it's because I want an encounter with a creature that can turn off the party's magic. As long as I don't do that all the time it's fine. Why would I remove its central eye?

Note too that the Beholder has built-in counterplay, in that the party can do things like spread out or use cover to avoid the cone's effect, or that the beholder typically has to choose between affecting a given target with its central eye or its eye rays.


Obviously not. This being 3e, you could optimize it to make it a legitimate tactic and a key part of your overall strategy. But even the barebones counterspell action was something we ended up using a few times on characters not built for it (back in our first very unoptimized campaign; it was useful against higher level enemy casters when you had the action advantage and just needed to stop them from doing bull**** stuff): and it was way less gamewarping than the current Counterspell system which provides a ridiculous action economy advantage for successful counterspelling (Reaction for Action), meaning everyone is well-advised to play around it at all times.

My point is that neither edition really did counterspell all that well. In 3e, they made it costly/annoying to use (hi there Grod), then proceeded to undermine that with successive splats. In 5e, it started out too strong and now they're walking it back with new casting monster design getting abilities that bypass it.

[Eldariel]

My point is that neither edition really did counterspell all that well. In 3e, they made it costly/annoying to use (hi there Grod), then proceeded to undermine that with successive splats. In 5e, it started out too strong and now they're walking it back with new casting monster design getting abilities that bypass it.

Hmm, I think counterspelling is the kind of strategy that should be a bit underpowered since it's so oppressive when it's strong. By its nature it still has uses but it's true that readied actions in general are a bit problematic in both systems (mostly a symptom of the turn system - you can't really "keep someone in check" since you define something and they might just do something different), but if you fixed readying, I think 3e-style counterspelling is way healthier for the game than 5e-style.

[Psyren]

Hmm, I think counterspelling is the kind of strategy that should be a bit underpowered since it's so oppressive when it's strong. By its nature it still has uses but it's true that readied actions in general are a bit problematic in both systems (mostly a symptom of the turn system - you can't really "keep someone in check" since you define something and they might just do something different), but if you fixed readying, I think 3e-style counterspelling is way healthier for the game than 5e-style.

5e style is only too strong because it's automatic via upcasting. Make it require a check no matter what - preferably an opposed check so the DM gets to roll too - and a lot of the problems go away, in addition to the improvements they've currently made (i.e. caster monsters - especially bosses - getting uncounterable things they can do.)

[SpikeFightwicky]

I'm not sure I understand the question. If I'm using a Beholder, it's because I want an encounter with a creature that can turn off the party's magic. As long as I don't do that all the time it's fine. Why would I remove its central eye?

Note too that the Beholder has built-in counterplay, in that the party can do things like spread out or use cover to avoid the cone's effect, or that the beholder typically has to choose between affecting a given target with its central eye or its eye rays.

For sure! My main question was whether it was just AMF the spell, or AMF the effect that the OP was not using. Like, was it the AMF effect that the players hated (so no use of any enemy with anything AMF) or specifically the spell. So I was wondering their stance on that (for example, IF a beholder with AM central eye was deemed too unfun by the group, would they run a beholder with a different central eye power, or just not run beholders, or were beholders acceptable because it's not specifically the AMF spell being used).

[Eldariel]

5e style is only too strong because it's automatic via upcasting. Make it require a check no matter what - preferably an opposed check so the DM gets to roll too - and a lot of the problems go away, in addition to the improvements they've currently made (i.e. caster monsters - especially bosses - getting uncounterable things they can do.)

Regardless of how one approaches it, the action economy is too strong if it works. The current "improvements" are unintuitive enough that I'd consider them largely worthless. Unreliability would be a good start, yes, but even then I think it should cost more than just a reaction. Negating enemy's whole action and spell slot with a reaction is ridiculous. There's really no good way to design it so that it's not entirely gamewarping without touching upon the totality of the countering effect or the action economy.

[Psyren]

Regardless of how one approaches it, the action economy is too strong if it works. The current "improvements" are unintuitive enough that I'd consider them largely worthless. Unreliability would be a good start, yes, but even then I think it should cost more than just a reaction. Negating enemy's whole action and spell slot with a reaction is ridiculous. There's really no good way to design it so that it's not entirely gamewarping without touching upon the totality of the countering effect or the action economy.

If you remove the automatic counter functionality, I'd say having a chance to negate action + spell slot with reaction + spell slot isn't that big a deal. After all, then there's also a chance that your reaction + spell slot does nothing at all, but still uses up those resources. Moreover, even for spellcasters (the new ones anyway), it's not capable of blocking everything.

One alternative I saw came from PHB2 in 3.5, called Dampen Spell. Instead of a hard counter, you deducted a number (e.g. the level of the spell used for Dampen Spell) from any save DC or attack roll associated with the spell being dampened. It was a feat there, but could be a spell here, and could even be lower level than Counterspell.

[Eldariel]

If you remove the automatic counter functionality, I'd say having a chance to negate action + spell slot with reaction + spell slot isn't that big a deal. After all, then there's also a chance that your reaction + spell slot does nothing at all, but still uses up those resources. Moreover, even for spellcasters (the new ones anyway), it's not capable of blocking everything.

One alternative I saw came from PHB2 in 3.5, called Dampen Spell. Instead of a hard counter, you deducted a number (e.g. the level of the spell used for Dampen Spell) from any save DC or attack roll associated with the spell being dampened. It was a feat there, but could be a spell here, and could even be lower level than Counterspell.

Yeah, that's more what I'd like to see: mitigate the spell but not completely negate it. That's more fun for everybody involved. If this game had a 4 or 6 stage success system, it would be trivial to simply have the spell's success level drop by 1. That would be a useful, powerful spell but it would still let the opponent do something so the action isn't entirely wasted (though that would of course depend on the implementation of the success system: PF2e style spell success is often so weak that it's not really worth mentioning, you need critical success for many of them to do much).

Check alone I do not like since you're already inclined to pick up Lucky which makes the success extremely likely, so I don't think it would be enough of a nerf, at least without making it harder to acquire a cushion. Though of course, requiring additional resources to make the check so likely to succeed that you don't care would be nice.

[Snails]

Regardless of how one approaches it, the action economy is too strong if it works.

Agreed.

I consider the Counterspell rules as is to be very poor design. It is certainly possible for a DM to apply RAW and be wise & insightful enough to sidestep the vast potential for un-fun. That there are not hard workarounds means the situation is not terrible. But it is potentially bad enough that simply getting rid of Counterspell entirely is a reasonable choice.

My inclination is to simply eliminate the big Action Economy win thusly: Counterspell costs your Reaction plus your next upcoming Action.

Counterspell becomes an interesting defensive choice, if you believe that particular enemy spell is one you really want to stop. It is no longer the trivial way to win the DPS battle via Counterspell superiority.

[Psyren]

I would be more in favor of reaction + upcoming action (or upcoming bonus action) than I would "You must use Ready."

[rel]

To briefly address the confusion some posters have had regarding my antimagic field change, the effect will be removed wholesale from players, monsters and anywhere else it might appear.
Back to the house rules.

Since the bard and fiend pact warlock don't have a specific bonus to counterspell but a general bonus to checks I'm happy leaving them as is.

I'm thinking of replacing the abjuration wizard level 10 ability with the ability to learn any abjuration spells of appropriate level rather than just those on the sorc / wizard list.
Thoughts / suggestions?

[OvisCaedo]

That looks to be about 20~ spells it opens access to, including Pass Without Trace and the Restoration spells. Death Ward is another one that might be pretty good.

[KorvinStarmast]

Negating enemy's whole action and spell slot with a reaction is ridiculous. No, it isn't ridiculous. And a monster can do the same if it has counterspell and burns its slot. Psyren's idea to always make it a contest (not just when it is upcast) may be a good tweak.

I will say that if the party has a 5 minute adventure day, not a full AD budget with multiple encounters, then the decision to use that spell slot becomes less of a choice/opportunity cost. In a day where spell slots usually/often get exhausted, or nearly so, by the time the party can stop making that choice is far more of an exercise in risk management.
This I have observed from experience in play, not some white room argument.

Since the bard and fiend pact warlock don't have a specific bonus to counterspell but a general bonus to checks I'm happy leaving them as is. Good idea.
Anecdote: Wednesday night the level 9 bard wanted to counter the arch mage's spell (which was 9th level, time stop) and as the DM I first had him to a perception check: could he even see that the mage was casting a spell? The large chamber had 4 PCs, a couple of elementals, and the archmage in it, and some furniture. Since in combat the various participants are moving, I looked at a few 'line of sight' estimates and told him "perception check, DC 12, to see him cast the spell" and he rolled a 19. OK, counterspell. He needed to roll a 19 (after plusses) and got it right on the number. It also could have failed. (Jack of All Trades meant he need a raw 13, had he been a non bard a 15 (casting stat is 18)).

But what I will do next time will be different: if there is a chance at line of sight obstruction: I'll roll for the monster/enemy mage, Arcana check. I'll compare that roll to PC's Passive Perception or Passive Arcana (have not decided yet) so that the PC doesn't have to roll twice for a counter spell.

I'm thinking of replacing the abjuration wizard level 10 ability with the ability to learn any abjuration spells of appropriate level rather than just those on the sorc / wizard list. Like magical secrets? Pick one?

[Snails]

I will say that if the party has a 5 minute adventure day, not a full AD budget with multiple encounters, then the decision to use that spell slot becomes less of a choice/opportunity cost. In a day where spell slots usually/often get exhausted, or nearly so, by the time the party can stop making that choice is far more of an exercise in risk management.

And that right there is why it is poor design -- the optimal tactics are extremely different depending on play style. While differences in strategy are inevitable between two different styles of campaigning, mechanics that strongly accentuate the differences in terms of tactical decisions are a best avoided, if possible.

Furthermore, I have seen plenty of adventuring days where your experience does not map to mine. In T2 play, one single enemy fireball will likely burn the equivalent of 20% to 50% of your party's HD. If you are intending to run a long day, sucking up that much damage is a bad move, and not resource wise -- you will likely have to call your day short when expending precious spell slots on healing sooner, rather than later.

[KorvinStarmast]

And that right there is why it is poor design -- the optimal tactics are extremely different depending on play style. Your second half of that sentence, after the dashes, does not imply poor design. The game design assumptions appear to be that of multiple encounters, and something close to resource depletion/exhaustion by the end of the 'adventure day' as a normal or typical pace. I have found, though, that our groups enjoy some days being curb stomps and some days being "I can't believe we made it through that" and some points in between.

While differences in strategy are inevitable between two different styles of campaigning, mechanics that strongly accentuate the differences in terms of tactical decisions are a best avoided, if possible.
What, do you mean casting spells as a reaction? :smallconfused: I read that twice, and it's so general and so vague that I am not sure what you are getting at.

Furthermore, I have seen plenty of adventuring days where your experience does not map to mine. In T2 play, one single enemy fireball will likely burn the equivalent of 20% to 50% of your party's HD. Would be nice to counterspell that fireball, eh? :smallwink: If the game is to offer a challenge, the enemy gets a vote, and sometimes the HP resource gets hit hard.
How the loss of HP is about counterspell I am unclear on, though. The below is true irrespective of counterspell being in the game: flameskulls being a classic case.

If you are intending to run a long day, sucking up that much damage is a bad move, and not resource wise -- you will likely have to call your day short when expending precious spell slots on healing sooner, rather than later. Or use the other tools in the box, like a Short rest to restore some of them.

[Eldariel]

No, it isn't ridiculous.

Okay, tell me one other ability that trades action economy as efficiently and reliably.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Okay, tell me one other ability that trades action economy as efficiently and reliably.

It really depends on how your table runs counterspell, imo it should be done blindly so you aren't aware of what level you need to cast it to guarantee success.

A few obvious answers, Shield and Silvery Barbs can both potentially eat away an enemies action used to attack. They've got a significantly lower resource cost too, which I feel is being actively ignored when discussing Counterspell as in the majority of game tiers you simply won't have the opportunity to use Counterspell and your most powerful spells in the same day.

Then we have those powerful spells to consider. Hypnotic Pattern and Slow, if successfully cast, can potentially eat several actions/attacks from multiple creatures.

We're placing a lot of emphasis on this being a reaction that stops an enemies spellcast, which when observed like that of course it looks like a really powerful option. Add in context like - it can fail, it has a relatively high resource cost, it only is useful against Spellcasters which makes it a dead option in combats without them and finally its range is relatively short in terms of spellcasting.

It's obviously useful, and it's obviously going to seem very powerful when it successfully erases an enemies turn, but it's absolutely not the only thing that can do it.

[Eldariel]

It really depends on how your table runs counterspell, imo it should be done blindly so you aren't aware of what level you need to cast it to guarantee success.

A few obvious answers, Shield and Silvery Barbs can both potentially eat away an enemies action used to attack. They've got a significantly lower resource cost too, which I feel is being actively ignored when discussing Counterspell as in the majority of game tiers you simply won't have the opportunity to use Counterspell and your most powerful spells in the same day.

Then we have those powerful spells to consider. Hypnotic Pattern and Slow, if successfully cast, can potentially eat several actions/attacks from multiple creatures.

We're placing a lot of emphasis on this being a reaction that stops an enemies spellcast, which when observed like that of course it looks like a really powerful option. Add in context like - it can fail, it has a relatively high resource cost, it only is useful against Spellcasters which makes it a dead option in combats without them and finally its range is relatively short in terms of spellcasting.

It's obviously useful, and it's obviously going to seem very powerful when it successfully erases an enemies turn, but it's absolutely not the only thing that can do it.

That's where the reliability comes in. Shield or Silvery Barbs can do it...a certain percentage of the time, and in the case of attacks it's still typically only a part of the attack action, which tends to involve multiple attacks. Don't get me wrong, they're really good, but far as reliability goes, Counterspell is more so. Hypnotic Pattern can do it...on a failed save, and assuming no Legendary Resistance. And most of those things take an action for an action. Counterspell for 1-3 level spells just plain says "lose action for a reaction" and even for higher levels, the check is way easier to buff to the point of reliability than e.g. debuffing enemy saves.

[Selion]

Eh, I'm already wanted by roleplay police in 12 systems for banning feats, multiclassing, items and spells that add +numbers, and any content published after 2014.
I don't think I'll be convincing the internet that I'm not playing the game wrong any time soon.

Oh, it's not a wrong way, just a less interesting one. As long as fair play and narrative are a common focus, I thing that hinder players choices is not the way to go.
I remember at least a memorable fight involving a antimagic field, I don't see any the reason to remove it. The key is balancing encounters around the party IMHO, if every encounter is a showtime of high levels spells and their countermeasures martial players will be bored. If encounters are designed to alternate players in taking the spotlight, or even better forcing them to play with synergies, then that rare times in which the fight is resolved with obscure magic will not be despised by other players.
You can still build a wonderful campaign without feats and multiclassing and weird mechanics, but the first effect will be that some players will not play the character they want. The core of this game is building a character mixing mechanics and roleplay, that's why so much material is about subclasses and builds, if you remove all of that, you still have narrative, but you have not an improved narrative, just a truncated one.
At least, this is according to my tastes, your table could approve this way of playing and there's nothing wrong about that

[KorvinStarmast]

Okay, tell me one other ability that trades action economy as efficiently and reliably. (1) It can fail, and (2) the caster doesn't necessarily know what spell is being cast; could be counterspelling a cantrip (which isn't efficient, is it? No, it isn't).
The descriptor "ridiculous" is riddled with your own assumptions.
Is it strong? Can be. That is no reason for the hyperbole, though.
And when the counterspell fails against a higher level spell, you both lose your slot and the enemy spell goes off. That's for sure not efficient, nor effective. I do not see that you are looking at the interactions thoroughly.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's where the reliability comes in. Shield or Silvery Barbs can do it...a certain percentage of the time, and in the case of attacks it's still typically only a part of the attack action, which tends to involve multiple attacks. Don't get me wrong, they're really good, but far as reliability goes, Counterspell is more so. Hypnotic Pattern can do it...on a failed save, and assuming no Legendary Resistance. And most of those things take an action for an action. Counterspell for 1-3 level spells just plain says "lose action for a reaction" and even for higher levels, the check is way easier to buff to the point of reliability than e.g. debuffing enemy saves.

Wrt shield, if you're the one taking multiple attacks this will affect multiple attacks. It even effects other creatures beyond the triggering one. That's pretty efficient. Silvery Barbs is "less efficient" but more reliable in that you can't trigger it wastefully, and it has additional benefits.

Hypnotic Pattern, when used correctly, is always going to eat at least 2 turns. In the ideal scenario the affected creature takes no action and a second creature takes an action to rouse the first. If they don't, you're still taking two actions from one. It's your action for multiple enemy actions. The only true risk once HP is successful is loss of concentration and poor team coordination, which I want to be clear I'm not trying to discount as potential weaknesses.

And before it's brought up, yes, I do think it's fair to assume at least the minimum favorable outcome for these spells since we're assuming so much is favorable for counterspell.

[rel]

Like magical secrets? Pick one?

Improved abjuration now reads:
All abjuration spells are added the wizard spell list. They can be learned during level up (including the current level), discovered through research or copied from scrolls and other spellbooks.

[JonBeowulf]

I "fixed" Counterspell by announcing the spell the NPC is casting -- same thing the players have to do. It removed the trust issue and allowed players to use their resources intelligently.

I don't have an issue with AMF.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I "fixed" Counterspell by announcing the spell the NPC is casting -- same thing the players have to do. It removed the trust issue and allowed players to use their resources intelligently.

I don't have an issue with AMF.

That is amazingly fair. There are more house rules around this I swear.

A DM I play with would just tell me what spell was being cast if it was one on my Bard's list and make me roll arcana if it wasn't. I don't think he ever dropped any hints as to level if it was being upcast.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That is amazingly fair. There are more house rules around this I swear.

A DM I play with would just tell me what spell was being cast if it was one on my Bard's list and make me roll arcana if it wasn't. I don't think he ever dropped any hints as to level if it was being upcast.

It is "fair" in the sense that no one feels they're being cheated by the end of it, though it's also possibly a reason someone might think counterspell is to reliable.

If the DM opts to announce their spellcasting it gives the player immediate information that there character might not have and they can make decisions based off that. At my table (where in currently the DM, but not always) we only announce that a spell is being cast so they know that a trigger is happening. Ditto with shield, you're told that you've been hit.

If you give them enough information that they simply won't use the spell of they know it will fail, of course it seems very reliable.

[JonBeowulf]

It is "fair" in the sense that no one feels they're being cheated by the end of it, though it's also possibly a reason someone might think counterspell is to reliable.

If the DM opts to announce their spellcasting it gives the player immediate information that there character might not have and they can make decisions based off that. At my table (where in currently the DM, but not always) we only announce that a spell is being cast so they know that a trigger is happening. Ditto with shield, you're told that you've been hit.

If you give them enough information that they simply won't use the spell of they know it will fail, of course it seems very reliable.

Which is exactly the trust issue I wanted to resolve. The DM always knows what's going on but the players only see what they see. The DM gets to know the spell before deciding to counterspell... they players don't (RAW and probably RAI). So to level the playing field, either the DM has to decide blindly or the players get to decide intelligently.

Blindly introduces a bunch of "write it on a slip of paper" nonsense that slows everything down and creates its own minigame. Hard pass.

Toss them a bone and lets play the game.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Which is exactly the trust issue I wanted to resolve. The DM always knows what's going on but the players only see what they see. The DM gets to know the spell before deciding to counterspell... they players don't (RAW and probably RAI). So to level the playing field, either the DM has to decide blindly or the players get to decide intelligently.

Blindly introduces a bunch of "write it on a slip of paper" nonsense that slows everything down and creates its own minigame. Hard pass.

Toss them a bone and lets play the game.

It doesn't slow play down beyond the learning process for both sides to say "from now on, when you cast a spell, announce you are casting a spell and we will decide if a reaction is happening"

On the bolded specifically... Why do you assume that? It's that assumption that would make it seem unfair, right? I don't see anywhere that says that a player must declare the spell they're casting before a DM decides to counterspell, pretty sure I don't see a rule that says a DM doesn't in the event that I'm missing the former rule. Can you cite either of those for me, since you say it's RAW?

Regardless, the intent behind this thread seems to be coming from the opposite angle, which is why I proposed what I did - Counterspell imx doesn't seem so overwhelmingly strong and reliable if its done truly blind.

Removing it is definitely a solution, and an appealing one because it works from both angles and its "easy", but I think it's one that would end up being more punishing to the players than the DM long term.

[JonBeowulf]

You're right... nothing RAW states anyone has to declare the spell being cast before target selection and all that. My bad.

I've been playing since BECMI so I figured that was still the way it was and I've never been in a game where a player said "I cast a spell" instead of "I cast <whatever>".

I prefer everyone announcing the spell to prevent the following:
"I cast a spell"
A - "Opponent casts Counterspell", "LOL, cantrip!"
B - "Opponent doesn't react", "LOL, Fireball!"

[ProsecutorGodot]

You're right... nothing RAW states anyone has to declare the spell being cast before target selection and all that. My bad.

I've been playing since BECMI so I figured that was still the way it was and I've never been in a game where a player said "I cast a spell" instead of "I cast <whatever>".

I prefer everyone announcing the spell to prevent the following:
"I cast a spell"
A - "Opponent casts Counterspell", "LOL, cantrip!"
B - "Opponent doesn't react", "LOL, Fireball!"

I suppose if writing the intended spell down is truly too much of a time investment (and I don't mean that sarcastically, my table manages to waste surprising amounts of time on mundane tasks at times) that is probably the better option to take to maintain trust if you're worried about this type of thing.