More Counterspell Weakens Casters?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

One of the things talked about on the forum is an imbalance between casters and martials.*

I have a theory more Counterspell in your games makes martials more powerful.

DPR wise its simple, if Fireball only goes off 2 out of 3 times it does less damage.

If my Bard is staying 75 feet away the martials are going to get first crack at the loot.

Now having characters who can cast Counterspell is important. I don't see why there can't be a feat which allows an archer to interrupt casting on a hit.

Also a sword or necklace or ear rings which can "absorb" up to 20 levels of magical energy by casting Counterspell before exploding could be fun.

*personally I really like 5e even if I do think up the random magic item or sonething.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure. But mainly by annoying everyone and taking up table time.

In general, abilities that say "no, you don't" are less fun than ones that say "yes but" or "yes and". Plus, reactions/interrupts have a very disruptive effect on the flow of play.

Don't balance things by making them annoying to use.

[DarknessEternal]

going to get first crack at the loot.


What game are you playing?

D&D is cooperative.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

What game are you playing?

D&D is cooperative.

It is. In my 3 groups there has always been a bit of competition. If we find Shatterspike which two characters can use they'll negotiate. He who has it has the advantage though.

In your games is there the martial vs caster thing for damage?

How do u give out loot?

[KorvinStarmast]

What game are you playing?

D&D is cooperative. Heh, not at every table. Our groups share pretty well, but I've been, in previous editions, in groups where who-got-what became kind of contentious.
Rolling for who gets it became a way to sort that out.

[nickl_2000]

It is. In my 3 groups there has always been a bit of competition. If we find Shatterspike which two characters can use they'll negotiate. He who has it has the advantage though.

In your games is there the martial vs caster thing for damage?

How do u give out loot?

Our group hands out loot based on who needs it most, who will be the most effective, and who has gotten the most. Outside of a few minor situations we don't play PCs that are sneaking and stealing from other PCs.

[OldTrees1]

I have a theory more Counterspell in your games makes martials more powerful.

1) Counterspell rarely happens outside of combat.
2) Counterspell being more common acts as a failure chance for an existing capability. It would not grant a missing capability. It only works for cases a nerf is useful. It does not replicate the merits of a buff.

I don't think more counterspell addresses the deficiencies I am interested in. If it works for you, go for it.

[DarknessEternal]

Our group hands out loot based on who needs it most, who will be the most effective, and who has gotten the most. Outside of a few minor situations we don't play PCs that are sneaking and stealing from other PCs.

I don’t comprehend any other way while playing a game for fun with my friends.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

1) Counterspell rarely happens outside of combat.
2) Counterspell being more common acts as a failure chance for an existing capability. It would not grant a missing capability. It only works for cases a nerf is useful. It does not replicate the merits of a buff.

I don't think more counterspell addresses the deficiencies I am interested in. If it works for you, go for it.

Agreed. I bet 99.9% of Counterspells are used in combat. I used it once to prevent combat but that is a fine hair we are splitting, you are correct.

I also thing we agree Counterspell shuts down an existing ability. An ability of a Caster. It makes the caster weaker.

What deficiences are you interested in? Out of combat utility like Teleport?

[nickl_2000]

I don’t comprehend any other way while playing a game for fun with my friends.

Well don't forget that not everyone plays with friends though. Game store drop ins are relatively common and so are online games with groups.

[OldTrees1]

Agreed. I bet 99.9% of Counterspells are used in combat. I used it once to prevent combat but that is a fine hair we are splitting, you are correct.

I also thing we agree Counterspell shuts down an existing ability. An ability of a Caster. It makes the caster weaker.

What deficiences are you interested in? Out of combat utility like Teleport?

In general, the out of combat utility of non casters does not keep pace in Tier 3 & 4. This is a general problem with a variety of contributing factors*.

In combat everyone is good enough (even at Tier 4) and thus I don't need to adjust the frequency of counterspell.

So since my main concern is an out of combat deficiency instead of an in combat overpowered caster, increasing counterspell frequency does not address my concerns. If it works for you, go for it.

*A thought experiment would be to look at each class level by level and determine when it did not get a level appropriate feature that you found engaging. For me these classes have reasonable features for these ranges, Fighter 1-12, Rogue/Paladin 1-14, Sorcerer 1-17.

[kazaryu]

Sure. But mainly by annoying everyone and taking up table time.

In general, abilities that say "no, you don't" are less fun than ones that say "yes but" or "yes and". Plus, reactions/interrupts have a very disruptive effect on the flow of play.

Don't balance things by making them annoying to use.

this right here.

yes, techncaily putting more counterspellers in play makes caster's worse. but it makes caster's worse by making them unable to act reliably. Thats not fun.

to add to phoenix' point, however, it also forces me to use casters more...rather than a mix of things. which leads to 'oh look, another fight with |insert repetitive dynamic becuse the PC's keep having to fight casters.| and then on top of that, when i don't include counterspellers, its literally just a signal to the players that I, the DM, have decided that its time for the casters to shine. which also feels bad.

so..nah. i mean, i've not seen and actual *practical* problem with the 'caster/martial divide' at my table. i think it basically goes away so long as you tell the caster's 'no' when they try cheesy ****, and then run multiple encounters between long rests so the casters can't just unload all their spells every fight.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

I'm confused how making the party's martials better at shutting down the party's casters helps anything. If the martials are needing counterspell-- isn't that the enemy causing that to happen?

[Kane0]

I don’t comprehend any other way while playing a game for fun with my friends.

If you trust your friends enough, a backstabby game can be amazing fun. Its like Werewolf but an RPG over several sessions.

[Guy Lombard-O]

*A thought experiment would be to look at each class level by level and determine when it did not get a level appropriate feature that you found engaging. For me, Fighter 1-12, Rogue/Paladin 1-14, Sorcerer 1-17.

So, Indominable is not engaging the first time you get it at Fighter 9, but it's okee-dokee to get a second helping of it at Fighter 13? :smallconfused:

I understand that your examples are intended to be 100% subjective preferences, but the internal inconsistency of this one jumped out at me.

I totally agree that Fighters have far too many levels which are weak, uninspiring and unengaging (looking at you in particular, Indominable). But the Extra Attack (1, 2, 3), Action Surge, and Second Wind/proficiencies/Fighting Style levels are not the ones I would have picked. I think most of the 13+ levels are more egregious offenders, particularly since that's when other classes are turning into legendary demi-gods while Fighter is only picking up additional uses of low-level abilities.

But back on point, Counterspell and other abilities that might weaken casters would be more welcome if they were written in such as way that they weren't simple "Nope/cancel fun" options. If the spell instead gave you a sliding scale of reducing the effects/damage/effectiveness of the spell being countered, I think most people would consider that a fun addition to the game, rather than something which feels bad to be the recipient of, on either side of the player/DM divide.

[OldTrees1]

So, Indominable is not engaging the first time you get it at Fighter 9, but it's okee-dokee to get a second helping of it at Fighter 13? :smallconfused:

I understand that your examples are intended to be 100% subjective preferences
Vice versa and more about the level appropriate consideration rather than engaging consideration. Sorry for the miscommunication. I edited that sentence to be clearer now.
Fighter 13th is the first level Fighter fails to deliver for my subjective preferences.
Rogue and Paladin 15th is the first that fails to deliver for my subjective preferences.
Sorcerer 18th is the first that fails to deliver for my subjective preferences.


Fighter 13th grants a 2nd usage (worse than a 1st usage) of a questionable Tier 2 ability despite being a Tier 3 level. (Sounds like you are similarly minded)

I think most of the 13+ levels are more egregious offenders, particularly since that's when other classes are turning into legendary demi-gods while Fighter is only picking up additional uses of low-level abilities.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I'm confused how making the party's martials better at shutting down the party's casters helps anything. If the martials are needing counterspell-- isn't that the enemy causing that to happen?

I think the focus is making anyone better at shutting down a spell being cast.

Consider. If you raise everyone's AC by a point then anyone making a weapon attack is more or less 5% less effective in combat.

If you Counterspell some percentage of spells then whoever cast them is that percentage less effective.

[Crucius]

Now having characters who can cast Counterspell is important. I don't see why there can't be a feat which allows an archer to interrupt casting on a hit.

There is, it's called the Monster Slayer Ranger's level 11 feature "Magic-User's Nemesis"


I think the focus is making anyone better at shutting down a spell being cast.

Consider. If you raise everyone's AC by a point then anyone making a weapon attack is more or less 5% less effective in combat.

If you Counterspell some percentage of spells then whoever cast them is that percentage less effective.

I think counterspell is too 'front-end', too in-your-face and punishing for the players.
You give the 'back-end' solution in your own post here; If you raise everyone's Saving Throw bonus by a point, then anyone casting a spell that requires a save is ~5% less effective in combat.
This is much more granular than a hard yes/no split. Heck, the Magic Resistance feature on monsters is a great tool to control the power of spellcasters, without shutting them down so hard.