If it looks like a spell, saves like a spell, and was cast by a spellcaster...

[Kvess]

I've see a lot of ink spilled about changes to caster stat blocks in Monsters of the Multiverse. Namely actions that look like spells but... aren't. Instead of debating the pros and cons of the new statblocks, as a DM, I would be inclined to make a houserule and treat all magical actions from spellcasting NPCs as spells.

The changes were supposedly made to simplify spellcasting NPCs for DMs and make it easier for us to create interesting encounters. For this reason, I feel that the changes should be kept behind-the-scenes in my games, invisible to players. Players shouldn't ever know or care that Arcane Burst isn't a cantrip or Sculpted Explosion isn't a spell. An evocation wizard created a gout of ice or flame. If she's a wizard, what she casts is a spell. And those spells can be dispelled, counterspelled, and trigger effects and abilities that interact with spells.

Is anyone else treating these spellcaster actions as spells, and if so are there any issues or corner cases that come up? The biggest issue that comes up for me is the level of the spell, when dispelling, counterspelling, or taking into account an effect like a Rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity. I'd be inclined to say that the spell level is equal to 1) a comparable spell, if I am aware of one, 2) the most powerful spell that character can otherwise cast, if they have other spells at their disposal, or 3) the creature's proficiency bonus.

[Oramac]

I haven't (yet) run into this issue in my games, but I'm inclined to agree. I will most likely treat those features (and others like them) as spells. I'd probably just call them 1st or 2nd level regardless. My job as a DM is to facilitate fun for the players, and casting counterspell is fun. So why not give it to them? Besides, as I like to remind my players, anything they can do the bad guys can also do. There's no reason the wizard they're fighting can't also have counterspell.

My primary concern, though, isn't the spell level. It's the number of castings. Take the Necromancer Wizard in MotM for instance. It's CR9 and casts Arcane Burst (Bolt, whatever) three times per turn as one singular action. Does counterspell stop all three of those? Or just one? I'm not really sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My primary concern, though, isn't the spell level. It's the number of castings. Take the Necromancer Wizard in MotM for instance. It's CR9 and casts Arcane Burst (Bolt, whatever) three times per turn as one singular action. Does counterspell stop all three of those? Or just one? I'm not really sure.

The obvious reference points are
* Eldritch Blast (one casting, multiple beams/attacks)
* Scorching Ray (one casting, multiple beams/attacks)
So it's most clearly (IMO) one casting.

[follacchioso]

It seems these changes were introduced on purpose, precisely to limit things like Counterspell.

This way, players can still counterspell some of the monster's actions, but basic attacks will be out of scope.

In theory, when a monster casts a spell, the DM should say something like "the monster is preparing to cast a spell: does anyone have any reactions?" This is fun, the first times it happens; but it quickly gets old, if you do it every turn.

Using the MotM approach, the players will only be able to counterspell the big spells. This means they will not waste Counterspells on cantrips and minor effects. Most turns the DM will use the standard non-counterable actions, and there it will be no need for the "does anyone want to counterspell" theatrics every time. Overall, this makes the game simpler and faster.

Whether you use this or not, it seems WotC is working on revamping the Counterspell system, so it is likely they will add other changes sooner or later.

[Psyren]

In theory, when a monster casts a spell, the DM should say something like "the monster is preparing to cast a spell: does anyone have any reactions?" This is fun, the first times it happens; but it quickly gets old, if you do it every turn.

You don't have to do this at all. If a player tries to counterspell something that isn't a spell, just point out that the trigger for their reaction didn't occur (no spell was cast) and they still have their reaction and the spell slot available to use. And if they don't try, just proceed normally.

[Spiritchaser]

I've see a lot of ink spilled about changes to caster stat blocks in Monsters of the Multiverse. Namely actions that look like spells but... aren't. Instead of debating the pros and cons of the new statblocks, as a DM, I would be inclined to make a houserule and treat all magical actions from spellcasting NPCs as spells.

The changes were supposedly made to simplify spellcasting NPCs for DMs and make it easier for us to create interesting encounters. For this reason, I feel that the changes should be kept behind-the-scenes in my games, invisible to players. Players shouldn't ever know or care that Arcane Burst isn't a cantrip or Sculpted Explosion isn't a spell. An evocation wizard created a gout of ice or flame. If she's a wizard, what she casts is a spell. And those spells can be dispelled, counterspelled, and trigger effects and abilities that interact with spells.


This is pretty much my opinion as well. Seems pretty good.

[follacchioso]

You don't have to do this at all. If a player tries to counterspell something that isn't a spell, just point out that the trigger for their reaction didn't occur (no spell was cast) and they still have their reaction and the spell slot available to use. And if they don't try, just proceed normally.
That's not the reason why you shouldn't specify which spell is being cast.

The point is to put the player in a situation where they have to make a tactical choice.

If you say that the monster is casting Meteor Swarm on the party, and the player is within 60', they will be very likely cast a Counterspell. But if you say that the monster is casting a cantrip, they may not bother spending a third level slot to Counterspell, as every character has limited resources.

If you, instead, just say "the monster is casting a spell", then the players will not know whether it is worth Counterspelling. They don't know if it is going to be Meteor Swarm or Firebolt, so they have to make a choice.

Now, MotM simplifies that, and removes cantrips and many low level spells from the equation. The DM will only have to ask for reactions when the monster casts a spell, which is usually of high level. The tactical choice will only happen when it matters, instead of every turn. Players will not waste Counterspells on cantrips and low level spells, and they will have better economy for their spell slots.

[Psyren]

That's not the reason why you shouldn't specify which spell is being cast.

You misunderstand - I'm not saying you should or shouldn't specify what the monster is doing. I'm saying you don't have to preface all the monster's actions with "the monster is preparing to cast a spell: does anyone have any reactions?" If you name or describe the action and they say "I want to counterspell that" then if it's not a spell then just let them know it isn't one and don't deduct any of their resources; it's much faster.

[Oramac]

Now, MotM simplifies that, and removes cantrips and many low level spells from the equation. The DM will only have to ask for reactions when the monster casts a spell, which is usually of high level. The tactical choice will only happen when it matters, instead of every turn. Players will not waste Counterspells on cantrips and low level spells, and they will have better economy for their spell slots.

Sure, but this removes the tactical element completely. It essentially becomes a binary choice. If spell, counterspell; else, no counterspell. Having the possibility of using the resource on a low level spell/cantrip gave the player a meaningful choice. MotM makes that choice significantly less meaningful.

Which isn't to say I dislike MotM, for the record. I actually think it's a fantastic book, and definitely streamlines a lot of things. But it definitely makes counterspell less interesting (though no less useful).

[Dame_Mechanus]

Which isn't to say I dislike MotM, for the record. I actually think it's a fantastic book, and definitely streamlines a lot of things. But it definitely makes counterspell less interesting (though no less useful).

I guess that depends on how you think of counterspelling being interesting. If you think that using a counterspell is basically a resource gamble - "do I use this limited resource to deny my enemy a potential deadly attack at the risk of wasting it" - then yes, not being able to counterspell minor in-place-of-physical-attacks stuff makes it less interesting. If you think that using a counterspell should be an active element, a part of the PC's strength being able to stop inconvenient things from happening, then it actually makes counterspells more interesting because it ensures that you're only using them on things you would actually want to counter.

Basically, it's a question of whether you want to play a bleed of resources or if you want to view it as a distinct tool to be used in deliberate moments. Neither way is more right than the other, but they are fundamentally incompatible with one another.

[Oramac]

snip

Basically, it's a question of whether you want to play a bleed of resources or if you want to view it as a distinct tool to be used in deliberate moments. Neither way is more right than the other, but they are fundamentally incompatible with one another.

A valid point. Though I would say they aren't necessarily incompatible. I often allow the player an Arcana check to determine what spell is being cast. Depending on their check, they may learn the exact spell or, if they roll lower, it's school or damage type (where applicable). This gives them an in-game reason to make the do/don't choice without losing the deliberate moments opportunity. FWIW, the Arcana check is usually not particularly difficult, especially for a caster who is likely proficient with it anyway.

[Pex]

That's not the reason why you shouldn't specify which spell is being cast.

The point is to put the player in a situation where they have to make a tactical choice.

If you say that the monster is casting Meteor Swarm on the party, and the player is within 60', they will be very likely cast a Counterspell. But if you say that the monster is casting a cantrip, they may not bother spending a third level slot to Counterspell, as every character has limited resources.

If you, instead, just say "the monster is casting a spell", then the players will not know whether it is worth Counterspelling. They don't know if it is going to be Meteor Swarm or Firebolt, so they have to make a choice.

Now, MotM simplifies that, and removes cantrips and many low level spells from the equation. The DM will only have to ask for reactions when the monster casts a spell, which is usually of high level. The tactical choice will only happen when it matters, instead of every turn. Players will not waste Counterspells on cantrips and low level spells, and they will have better economy for their spell slots.

In a previous thread there was a vocal contingent against the new design of these not-spell spells because they nullify everything PCs have in defense that deal specifically with spells. They got yelled at for badwrongthinking. Now, finally, a reasonable response to show how the new design is not screwing over players. The new design still causes issues with Mage Slayer and Ancients Paladins, but offering this new perspective can give pause to think more on it. Thank you for that.

[Dame_Mechanus]

A valid point. Though I would say they aren't necessarily incompatible.

In this case my use of the word "incompatible" was mostly to highlight the idea that there are two distinct approaches to how player resources are meant to be used and the role of purely defensive things like counterspells, not that there's no way to get the information to players if you prefer a more resource-bleed style of gameplay. It also wasn't intended to create any sort of example wherein one was put forward as "better" than the other, so my apologies if that was what got conveyed.

My feeling is that the designers behind 5e generally seem to prefer the idea of players being able to deploy their best tricks actively rather than treating everything as a game of careful resource management, but that is not in and of itself a superior tier of play; it's just different. Both can produce some fun moments of play in different scenarios.

[Psyren]

Worth noting also that identifying if a spell is worth countering doesn't have to be a crapshoot. There are spell identification rules in Xanathar's, and even before those I think most people were fine with just asking for an Arcana check.


Sure, but this removes the tactical element completely. It essentially becomes a binary choice. If spell, counterspell; else, no counterspell.

"Completely?" Did you counterspell literally everything a monster would try casting before? If that was common, that would definitely explain why WotC would have wanted to nerf it by proxy.

[Gignere]

Worth noting also that identifying if a spell is worth countering doesn't have to be a crapshoot. There are spell identification rules in Xanathar's, and even before those I think most people were fine with just asking for an Arcana check.



"Completely?" Did you counterspell literally everything a monster would try casting before? If that was common, that would definitely explain why WotC would have wanted to nerf it by proxy.

Counterspelling monsters spells is generally the best action to take, to spend a reaction to deny an action is amazing. Even if it was a cantrip. The only time that it’s an interesting choice is if there were multiple casters that you are facing and the DM is playing to juke your counterspell.

[Pex]

Worth noting also that identifying if a spell is worth countering doesn't have to be a crapshoot. There are spell identification rules in Xanathar's, and even before those I think most people were fine with just asking for an Arcana check.


Actually, no. Before Xanathar gave a DC formula people (here) were vehemently opposed to the idea of there being a way to identify a spell being cast because of how dare there exist any DC tables as well as making Counterspell too powerful how dare PCs have such power. I know because I was there.

The issue with the Xanathar rule is it requires a reaction to make the check, so the PC making the check can't be the one who does the Counterspelling. That had to be on purpose probably because not to make Counterspell too powerful, but letting one PC know the spell to allow another to counter requires teamwork and two reactions from the party gives a cost to counter with proper knowledge accepted as a fair trade in a DM's eyes.

Some DMs say what spell an NPC is casting and aren't bothered a PC counters, but that's a varying mileage individual to the DM thing even before Xanathar.

[Psyren]

Actually, no. Before Xanathar gave a DC formula people (here) were vehemently opposed to the idea of there being a way to identify a spell being cast because of how dare there exist any DC tables as well as making Counterspell too powerful how dare PCs have such power. I know because I was there.

I can't speak for what you saw from people here; my DMs don't use this forum at all. (In fact, I'm fairly confident in saying that most don't.)



The issue with the Xanathar rule is it requires a reaction to make the check, so the PC making the check can't be the one who does the Counterspelling. That had to be on purpose probably because not to make Counterspell too powerful, but letting one PC know the spell to allow another to counter requires teamwork and two reactions from the party gives a cost to counter with proper knowledge accepted as a fair trade in a DM's eyes.

Some DMs say what spell an NPC is casting and aren't bothered a PC counters, but that's a varying mileage individual to the DM thing even before Xanathar.

I never said it wasn't mileage varying, nor do I care honestly. It's still an alternative to the optional rule.

[Seramus]

Xanathar allows a reaction to make an Arcana check to identify the spell (assuming it isn't one you automatically recognize). This means you can have a designated spotter try to recognize spells and call them out to be counterspelled.

[Chronos]

The way I see it, if I'm fighting an archmage, and the archmage considers it worth their action to cast a spell, then that's all I need to know: A spell that the archmage considers worth casting is a spell that I consider worth counterspelling.

It doesn't even need to be an archmage. Even just an enemy that casts like, say, a 5th-level wizard, or one that can cast Fireball a couple of times per day, or whatever, the same analysis applies. If everything the enemy spellcaster does is a spell, then it matters not at all if they get some of those spells at will, because an enemy spellcaster will never live long enough to use up all of their per-day resources, anyway.

On the other hand, some of their "spells" not actually being spells does make a difference to enemy spellcasters, because it means that now they have the option of avoiding Counterspell. The enemy caster now has the choice (and they always have this choice, because they're not going to run out of slots before they die) of casting a real spell and wasting one of the party's Counterspell slots, or casting a fake spell and wasting some of the party's HP. It's a meaningful decision that's added to the game, but it's a decision made by the DM. We don't need more meaningful decisions that the DM gets to make, since they already have all the decisions.

[Gignere]

The way I see it, if I'm fighting an archmage, and the archmage considers it worth their action to cast a spell, then that's all I need to know: A spell that the archmage considers worth casting is a spell that I consider worth counterspelling.

It doesn't even need to be an archmage. Even just an enemy that casts like, say, a 5th-level wizard, or one that can cast Fireball a couple of times per day, or whatever, the same analysis applies. If everything the enemy spellcaster does is a spell, then it matters not at all if they get some of those spells at will, because an enemy spellcaster will never live long enough to use up all of their per-day resources, anyway.

On the other hand, some of their "spells" not actually being spells does make a difference to enemy spellcasters, because it means that now they have the option of avoiding Counterspell. The enemy caster now has the choice (and they always have this choice, because they're not going to run out of slots before they die) of casting a real spell and wasting one of the party's Counterspell slots, or casting a fake spell and wasting some of the party's HP. It's a meaningful decision that's added to the game, but it's a decision made by the DM. We don't need more meaningful decisions that the DM gets to make, since they already have all the decisions.

Exactly the current optimal meta with spell casting enemies is that regardless of what they do you just CS, if you have CS.

If the enemy have CS the optimal play is to burn its reaction. I guess with the new abilities it will allow the enemy casters to do something without the threat of a total shutdown.

Because I have been in fights where with two party member with CS an enemy BBEG caster did absolutely nothing before he was novaed down.

[Spiritchaser]

We don't need more meaningful decisions that the DM gets to make, since they already have all the decisions.

Absolutely this.

The older I get the more this seems obvious.

I’m not sure if I’m getting senile or just more aware of my limitations (or a bit of both) but streamlining the work of a DM is pretty critical, especially for those of us who don’t multitask well.

[Psyren]

We don't need more meaningful decisions that the DM gets to make, since they already have all the decisions.

While that is one choice added to the DM (spell or not-spell) the new statblocks remove others to compensate. The DM doesn't have to wonder if they should be upcasting the spell or not in order to hit the right level of challenge. They don't have to try and remember which spells on the statblock are bonus actions, reactions, and out-of-combat spells when figuring out the optimal behaviors of the creature in question. They don't have to mentally tally how many counterspells the party has available and need to be juked before the monster can do anything meaningful. And so on.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The enemy caster now has the choice (and they always have this choice, because they're not going to run out of slots before they die) of casting a real spell and wasting one of the party's Counterspell slots, or casting a fake spell and wasting some of the party's HP. It's a meaningful decision that's added to the game, but it's a decision made by the DM. We don't need more meaningful decisions that the DM gets to make, since they already have all the decisions.

Fwiw, the last two spellcasting NPC that I've run in Call of the Netherdeep (which uses these rules) have run out of spells to cast. Whether or not they run out of spells to cast in a combat depends on the contents of their small spell list. One of these NPC had Mage Armor, Major Image and Phantasmal Force once a day. Even if I did something silly and had them cast Mage Armor in the middle of combat or a Major Image while they're outnumbered 4 to 2 in a cramped space, that would still have only covered 3 of the 6 rounds this combat took.

Point being, it will happen (in my current experience, often) that is not just that Counterspelling the first confirmed spell is best but also the only chance you'd have. Once the Phantasmal Force failed the NPC turned from an illusionist to a blaster, using their 3d10+4 psychic damage blast attack twice a turn. They had no other options.

While that is one choice added to the DM (spell or not-spell) the new statblocks remove others to compensate. The DM doesn't have to wonder if they should be upcasting the spell or not in order to hit the right level of challenge. They don't have to try and remember which spells on the statblock are bonus actions, reactions, and out-of-combat spells when figuring out the optimal behaviors of the creature in question. They don't have to mentally tally how many counterspells the party has available and need to be juked before the monster can do anything meaningful. And so on.
The bolded being something they shouldn't really be doing anyway unless the NPC has been given any reason to assume they can.

[follacchioso]

In a previous thread there was a vocal contingent against the new design of these not-spell spells because they nullify everything PCs have in defense that deal specifically with spells. They got yelled at for badwrongthinking. Now, finally, a reasonable response to show how the new design is not screwing over players. The new design still causes issues with Mage Slayer and Ancients Paladins, but offering this new perspective can give pause to think more on it. Thank you for that.Yeah, thanks!

The changes to Mage Slayer, Ancient Paladins and Abjurer Wizards seem to be semi accidental. They are probably going to revise all the PHB classes feat at some point, like they did with the races in MotM. Abjurers were already quite clunky before this change.

[Psyren]

The bolded being something they shouldn't really be doing anyway unless the NPC has been given any reason to assume they can.

1) Most spellcasting enemies are pretty smart (especially fiends, aberrations, dragons etc), and probably know such a universally effective defense against spellcasting exists.

2) The PCs themselves, as the campaign goes on, tend to get increasingly notorious and naturally become more of a threat to the big bad.

[x3n0n]

1) Most spellcasting enemies are pretty smart (especially fiends, aberrations, dragons etc), and probably know such a universally effective defense against spellcasting exists.

2) The PCs themselves, as the campaign goes on, tend to get increasingly notorious and naturally become more of a threat to the big bad.

Agreed that the spellcasters should know that counterspell exists, and that they may well know that the PCs have such capability.

I think the assertion is that the NPC should not know how many castings of counterspell (or any spell) are available to the PCs unless there is some extraordinary surveillance at work.

Edit to clarify: The same holds for other spells as well, modulo possible in-world knowledge about the effective 1/day limit on high-level slots.

[Psyren]

Agreed that the spellcasters should know that counterspell exists, and that they may well know that the PCs have such capability.

I think the assertion is that the NPC should not know how many castings of counterspell (or any spell) are available to the PCs unless there is some extraordinary surveillance at work.

Edit to clarify: The same holds for other spells as well, modulo possible in-world knowledge about the effective 1/day limit on high-level slots.

I'm not talking about counting the bullets spell slots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmdmgfeRGUE) the heroes have during a fight. I'm talking about per round - no matter how many counterspells the party has available, for any given spell they can only attempt to counter once per person. So if you know the party you're up against has one wizard and one bard, at most you'll have 2 potential counters to worry about in a given 6-second interval.

[Oramac]

Sorry I'm coming back to this late. Good conversation here! Just wanted to chime in on a couple things.


"Completely?" Did you counterspell literally everything a monster would try casting before? If that was common, that would definitely explain why WotC would have wanted to nerf it by proxy.

No. I don't know anybody who CS'd literally everything before MotM. But my point is that since cantrips and such are removed, NOW you do want to CS literally everything, since the only spells they still cast are powerful ones. The only exception I can think of is if you want to wait to CS a very specific spell, but outside of a lot of RP research, this is bordering on extreme metagaming.


Exactly the current optimal meta with spell casting enemies is that regardless of what they do you just CS, if you have CS.

Yup. This. This is my point. Outside of a few edge cases, there is no tactical decision any longer. If it's a spell, cast CS. If not a spell, don't cast CS. There's no real meaningful decision there.

[Psyren]

No. I don't know anybody who CS'd literally everything before MotM. But my point is that since cantrips and such are removed, NOW you do want to CS literally everything, since the only spells they still cast are powerful ones. The only exception I can think of is if you want to wait to CS a very specific spell, but outside of a lot of RP research, this is bordering on extreme metagaming.

If you have no way of identifying what they were casting then there's no difference. And if you do, there's still plenty of reason to not CS everything. If I'm immune or resistant to lightning for instance, I'm probably not concerned with the lightning bolt Vecna is winding up, whether or not I know he has a Dominate or a Globe of Invulnerability waiting in the wings I'd be holding onto my CS.

What this change does do, is challenge parties who have so many CS available that the BBEG couldn't do a thing otherwise. And frankly, that's good.

[Gignere]

If you have no way of identifying what they were casting then there's no difference. And if you do, there's still plenty of reason to not CS everything. If I'm immune or resistant to lightning for instance, I'm probably not concerned with the lightning bolt Vecna is winding up, whether or not I know he has a Dominate or a Globe of Invulnerability waiting in the wings I'd be holding onto my CS.

What this change does do, is challenge parties who have so many CS available that the BBEG couldn't do a thing otherwise. And frankly, that's good.

Since Xanathars all the DMs I played with won’t tell you the spell cast so no way to tell if Vecna is casting lightning bolt or fireball unless you blow your reaction IDing the spell. So I just CS everything anyway.

[Psyren]

Since Xanathars all the DMs I played with won’t tell you the spell cast so no way to tell if Vecna is casting lightning bolt or fireball unless you blow your reaction IDing the spell. So I just CS everything anyway.

Mine thankfully agree the XGtE rule is dumb and either tell us outright or ask for a free arcana check.

But yes - if you're using the XGtE rule, you should be trying to counterspell everything anyway since stopping to ID first is pointless.

[Telok]

Mine thankfully agree the XGtE rule is dumb and either tell us outright or ask for a free arcana check.

But yes - if you're using the XGtE rule, you should be trying to counterspell everything anyway since stopping to ID first is pointless.

Our game all in-combat "stop & think" checks are an action, so any info gathering on anything is only done post-combat. The DM generally does announce spells, but I don't care. I make my counterspell decision before the target's turn and (vtt) whang the cast button on the word "cast" before he finishes saying what's being cast.

He's getting salty about the new casters too. Complains they run out of useful spells, get countered too much if I'm in range (no cantrips means no guessing and warlock means no regrets at spending the slot), and he doesn't like the extra hit points plus just blasting. Says they might as well be archer warriors with a couple scrolls, and he's starting to keep having to pick better spells all the time which kills any "time savings" or vtt integration for him. Definitely doesn't like that the ones he's tried don't seem to have any real defense spells.... come to think the mind flayers & assorted caster co. do seem to be more naff on actual magic but take more damage to kill recently.

Eh, whatever. I'm not in the game for the system but because the players are friends. Stuff that just throws & takes hp damage is dull fights and the real game happens between fights. Just wish they took up less time waiting around.