Counterspell is bad & boring game design

[Ionathus]

A little bit of a rant, a little bit of a genuine "change my mind" request here. Take the intensity of my opinions here with a grain of salt - I truly do want to understand if I'm missing something here.

I hate Counterspell (and its less cool sibling, Dispel Magic AKA Delayed Counterspell) in 5th edition. I think it's needlessly overpowered and its ability to outright nullify threats creates boring gameplay, compared to other options that mitigate those threats in much more interesting ways. I think it goes against the spirit of 5th edition, by being an insanely powerful spell option that's basically mandatory (one of the very few "mandatories") for every spellcaster with access to it.

Keep in mind I'm saying this as someone whose PC only survived a big boss fight because of a teammate's clutch Counterspell. I recognize its value for PCs, and can appreciate the feeling of power it gives a player when they shut down the Big Bad's big nasty spell. I still think it cheats players out of opportunity for more exciting mechanics and having to overcome the challenges that the triggering spell would've offered. I put a spell in that baddy's toolbox because I thought that spell would challenge the players in fun ways! There are a billion ways to react to a demon being summoned, but if negating the summoning before it's finished only costs a 3rd-level spell and a reaction, it's never not worth trying first.

Dispel Magic is bad in its own ways -- I've never seen an instance of a PC casting Dispel Magic where either that PC or the DM wasn't disappointed. Either they fail because they didn't roll high enough (or the effect wasn't explicitly a spell for arbitrary bad-game-design reasons), or they succeed and again, a cool challenge pops out of existence. Someone at the table always "loses".

I'm aware that there are plenty of workarounds, but I don't really like any of them. Cast the spell outside of the range of Counterspell, cast it in darkness or out of vision of the PCs, have your own Counterspelling squad of minions to Counter-Counterspell. Don't rely on spells at all. Accept that spells are an unreliable way to evoke surprise or quickly change the dynamics of a fight. Change your baddies' abilities so they're not "really" spells anymore so now the PCs' Counterspell is useless. These options all stink, like bandaids on a festering wound. They feel arbitrary and finnicky, like over-designing around a bad core mechanic.

And maybe I'm supposed to sacrifice all of these complaints and my NPCs' spells on the altar of "Player Fun." Well, guess what, I want to have fun too, and my fun comes from creating unique and memorable challenges for my players. Having to implement arbitrary fixes or blatant metagame safeguards against Counterspell either causes more headaches for me, or punishes the players for taking a powerful mechanic that's baked into the core rules.

TL;DR - Counterspell is baggage from 3.5 and doesn't belong in 5e. Nullifying challenges is 10x less fun for everyone at the table. Having a clearly-optimal "no sell" option flattens out combat decision-making and removes the excitement of cool scary things happening that you have to deal with.

What do folks think? Am I off my rocker? Am I being a railroading stick-in-the-mud, my-way-or-the-highway type of DM? What are your thoughts?

[noob]

It is overpowered against a few niche opponents whose numbers are going to be shrinking with the introduction of 5.5e.
Some campaigns never have you fight a single monster that casts spells, you would look silly for having prepared counterspell in one of those.

[Potato_Priest]

I don't think you're off your rocker, but I really like counterspell. It gives your magical players an ability to interact with other spellcasters in a way that feels more like a proper wizard duel than just fireballing each other for 8d6 and seeing whose hitpoints run out first.

I also really like shield and absorb elements, for having the same caster-duel type aspects.

There's also another workaround you didn't even mention- a single wizard can counterspell a counterspell cast against them. It may be a reaction, but you can spend a reaction during your turn if there's a proper trigger.

[Ionathus]

I don't think you're off your rocker, but I really like counterspell. It gives your magical players an ability to interact with other spellcasters in a way that feels more like a proper wizard duel than just fireballing each other for 8d6 and seeing whose hitpoints run out first.

I also really like shield and absorb elements, for having the same caster-duel type aspects.

There's also another workaround you didn't even mention- a single wizard can counterspell a counterspell cast against them. It may be a reaction, but you can spend a reaction during your turn if there's a proper trigger.

I also like shield and absorb elements; they both have clear uses but aren't so blatantly powerful that you'll save your reaction for them every single turn. I'd love to see more "caster-duel" style spells like those, where the effect isn't to nullify the spell's success, but to mitigate its impact (often only for the caster, so the rest of the party still takes the full brunt).

I recognize this falls outside of the bounds of 5e, but if they're going to have a "stop the wizard's spell" mechanic, I'd love to see one that's a little more flavorful. Maybe sorcerers, being better at flexible and instinctual casting, become able to lessen the damage of an enemy's pure-damage spell, for instance -- something like spending sorcery points as a reaction and reducing damage dice for everyone affected by that number spent?

Counterspelling a counterspell against your own spell is better, but still feels like a fiddly makeshift solution. I think it would be more interesting as an actual "contested check" style mechanic, where both sides choose how many resources to spend for a better chance at succeeding/stopping the spell.

[Amnestic]

I have less issues with Dispel Magic - since it costs an Action. If I'm DMing and my monster casts...idk, Wall of Fire and a player goes "a-ha! Dispel Magic! Your wall is gone!" then that's fine. Action->Action and the spell probably did something still. At the very least it took away a turn to make happen. I'm not inside people's heads but generally the response to Dispel Magic against and for the party seems pretty okay.

I do generally share your views on Counterspell though. I don't find it very fun. Players don't generally seem to enjoy it when it gets deployed against them, and as you've said it's not great when your monster's turn becomes "gets counterspelled".

In another magic system, perhaps, every spell could be a counterspell, but only if you have the "right one". Counterspell fireball with a cold spell. Counterspell Healing Word with a necromancy spell. I do recall Bless and Bane working in direct opposition to each other in 3.5 (and probably before). For obvious complexity reasons (not to mention having to rewrite most of the spells) that's not really viable I expect in 5e, but countering a spell with its 'opposite' would definitely feel better to me than countering with Counterspell, the spell that does counters.

[Xervous]

I personally love things like counterspell but I will admit it feels anomalous for 5e where the majority of features are anything but interactive.

In a good case the questions are “counterspell, shield, absorb elements, or featherfall, pick one” and you don’t know which might be the most serious concern as they’re queried in succession. If the player is throwing counterspell because it’s the only choice, that’s possibly on the encounter design.

[Ionathus]

It is overpowered against a few niche opponents whose numbers are going to be shrinking with the introduction of 5.5e.
Some campaigns never have you fight a single monster that casts spells, you would look silly for having prepared counterspell in one of those.

Definitely. I learned this the hard way when I played a skirmisher-style martial in Storm King's Thunder -- he could fight anything, but he would've shone in situations where he could evade and maneuver to the back of the enemy lines and take out squishier spellcasters or archers.

We fought exclusively brute-style giants and orcs for 20 sessions, and then the campaign fizzled.

[KorvinStarmast]

Keep in mind I'm saying this as someone whose PC only survived a big boss fight because of a teammate's clutch Counterspell. Am I off my rocker? Yes, as regards your last sentence.

Counterspell costs a resource. In a 5 minute adventuring day, it is stronger than not since the PC has ample spells in hand to burn a level slot to try and stop

In a day with 4 or 5 deadly or so encounters, those spell slots burned are an opportunity cost, and, if the opponent has cast a spell of level 4 or higher - and you don't know what spell level has been cast, do you? - your counterspell can fail. I have had counterspell fail on me when I tried to use it. Granted, that became less likely when my bard got to very high level, but a fail is a fail.


Counterspell is baggage from 3.5 and doesn't belong in 5e. Maybe, but 5e also has SIX saving throw stats to have to deal with (in defending from magic) while 3.5 had THREE (Fortitude/Will/Reflex) so maybe you aren't looking at the whole picture. I do not care for how D&D 5e does saving throws: I am used to all saves getting better as you go up in level (from the old game) and in 5e They Do Not. Only the two you are proficient in (yes, monks at high level are special) go up.

As to dispel magic - has been in the game since 1974. It has a good place in the game.

As an aside: if you had to use Vancian preparation, as in "how many counterspells can I afford to prepare today" I think quite a few of your complaints vanish.

[Ionathus]

I have less issues with Dispel Magic - since it costs an Action. If I'm DMing and my monster casts...idk, Wall of Fire and a player goes "a-ha! Dispel Magic! Your wall is gone!" then that's fine. Action->Action and the spell probably did something still. At the very least it took away a turn to make happen. I'm not inside people's heads but generally the response to Dispel Magic against and for the party seems pretty okay.

I do generally share your views on Counterspell though. I don't find it very fun. Players don't generally seem to enjoy it when it gets deployed against them, and as you've said it's not great when your monster's turn becomes "gets counterspelled".

In another magic system, perhaps, every spell could be a counterspell, but only if you have the "right one". Counterspell fireball with a cold spell. Counterspell Healing Word with a necromancy spell. I do recall Bless and Bane working in direct opposition to each other in 3.5 (and probably before). For obvious complexity reasons (not to mention having to rewrite most of the spells) that's not really viable I expect in 5e, but countering a spell with its 'opposite' would definitely feel better to me than countering with Counterspell, the spell that does counters.

This is actually my feeling on redesigning Dispel Magic mechanics! The way to end a Wall of Fire early is to hit it with equivalent Cold damage. Much like how Cloud-type spells can be dissipated by a strong wind, but making the elemental types more broadly applicable so most spellcasters *should* have something they can respond with. But like you said, that does get pretty fiddly and relies on the DM's judgment call for whether a 2nd-level Cold spell should be allowed to stop a 4th-level fire spell. Or should it just reduce the fire spell by the "damage" it deals? I think I'd let my players try for that if they asked. But it's probably outside the scope of 5e.


I personally love things like counterspell but I will admit it feels anomalous for 5e where the majority of features are anything but interactive.

In a good case the questions are “counterspell, shield, absorb elements, or featherfall, pick one” and you don’t know which might be the most serious concern as they’re queried in succession. If the player is throwing counterspell because it’s the only choice, that’s possibly on the encounter design.

If your PCs aren't in danger of falling 500ft in every combat encounter, you're doing it wrong. :smallcool: (This message brought to you by the Crumbling Castle Towers Collective)

[KorvinStarmast]

If your PCs aren't in danger of falling 500ft in every combat encounter, you're doing it wrong. :smallcool: (This message brought to you by the Crumbling Castle Towers Collective) Monks at high level once again are special. :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

As far as I can tell, this amounts to: I have an image in my mind of how combats are supposed to go, and these spells are disrupting it.

You can house rule Counterspell and Dispel Magic out of existence, of course, but for games run by others, my advice is to adjust the image in your mind to match what the game's actually telling you.

[Frozenstep]

I do see where you're coming from, and you're not off any rocker for having a problem with it.

I kind of mixed feelings on it. There are thematic reasons I really like it, it gives a notable edge in magical duels that it helps set apart the spell lists that do and don't feature them. It gives something to the interaction of two wizards slinging spells at each other, things shield and absorb element don't really do, that make it feel like they're really fighting and defending themselves with magic. Sometimes, a wizard duel is just cool.

But I don't like how it's so good in its area that it feels like a must-prepare. And it can make every wizard duel feel the same (though, with how spells are designed in 5e, I'm not sure they'd end up any different then a cleric fight (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html) if it was removed.)

[Ionathus]

Yes, as regards your last sentence.

Counterspell costs a resource. In a 5 minute adventuring day, it is stronger than not since the PC has ample spells in hand to burn a level slot to try and stop

In a day with 4 or 5 deadly or so encounters, those spell slots burned are an opportunity cost, and, if the opponent has cast a spell of level 4 or higher - and you don't know what spell level has been cast, do you? - your counterspell can fail. I have had counterspell fail on me when I tried to use it. Granted, that became less likely when my bard got to very high level, but a fail is a fail.

I see your point but I don't think counterspell is ever a sub-optimal pick, even in long adventuring days. If we're nearing the end of a dungeon and trying to conserve our resources for the dungeon's boss, and then a minion casts a 3rd+ level spell, Counterspell is still appealing. If it succeeds, the party doesn't have to deal with the damage or resource expenditure from resolving a 3rd+ level spell, which could be pretty nasty. Even if you're just talking about stopping a Fireball hitting a party of 4, that's still very good value from a 3rd-level slot.


Maybe, but 5e also has SIX saving throw stats to have to deal with (in defending from magic) while 3.5 had THREE (Fortitude/Will/Reflex) so maybe you aren't looking at the whole picture. I do not care for how D&D 5e does saving throws: I am used to all saves getting better as you go up in level (from the old game) and in 5e They Do Not. Only the two you are proficient in (yes, monks at high level are special) go up.

I'm not sure I see your point. I was saying that Counterspell doesn't belong in 5e because it's a different game from 3.5, and you seemingly offered another example of 5e being a different game. I don't see the connection.


As to dispel magic - has been in the game since 1974. It has a good place in the game.

Yeah, and THAC0 was around until 2000, but that didn't make it any less unintuitive. D&D is strangled by numerous bad design choices that have been hauled around because they're part of the "feel," but that doesn't ever make them immune to criticism. Appeal to tradition isn't going to win me over.

[KorvinStarmast]

I see your point but I don't think counterspell is ever a sub-optimal pick, even in long adventuring days. If we're nearing the end of a dungeon and trying to conserve our resources for the dungeon's boss, and then a minion casts a 3rd+ level spell, Counterspell is still appealing. If it succeeds, the party doesn't have to deal with the damage or resource expenditure from resolving a 3rd+ level spell Suggest you look at the whole picture: if it fails you are down a spell slot with No benefit. All you are looking at is 'if it succeeds'

I'm not sure I see your point. I was saying that Counterspell doesn't belong in 5e because it's a different game from 3.5, and you seemingly offered another example of 5e being a different game. I don't see the connection.
It's a defense against magic in an edition that has LESS defense against magic built into it.


Yeah, and THAC0 was around until 2000, but that didn't make it any less unintuitive. THACO worked fine for its intended purpose. WotC's scheme works fine also, for its intended purpose.

D&D is strangled by numerous bad design choices that have been hauled around because they're part of the "feel," but that doesn't ever make them immune to criticism. Appeal to tradition isn't going to win me over. Then get used to being unhappy, or play Blades in the Dark, Shadowrun, Runequest, or any of dozens of other games.
Or, as a DM, maybe learn how to use multiple spell casters in the same encounter. The wizard can only counterspell one of them as there is only one reaction per turn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do see where you're coming from, and you're not off any rocker for having a problem with it.

I kind of mixed feelings on it. There are thematic reasons I really like it, it gives a notable edge in magical duels that it helps set apart the spell lists that do and don't feature them. It gives something to the interaction of two wizards slinging spells at each other, things shield and absorb element don't really do, that make it feel like they're really fighting and defending themselves with magic. Sometimes, a wizard duel is just cool.

But I don't like how it's so good in its area that it feels like a must-prepare. And it can make every wizard duel feel the same (though, with how spells are designed in 5e, I'm not sure they'd end up any different then a cleric fight (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html) if it was removed.)

I agree with this. I'm moving toward a design where countering "spells" is something various classes get to do with different constraints, rather than being a spell.

Like say barbarians just make it so any caster in their reach has to make a check to succeed on casting a spell (or using other magical abilities) because the barbarian just has this aura of chaotic primal power.

Or sorcerers can make magic misfire (the closest to the wizard duel thing).

Etc.

Bake it into the classes and tune it for that particular class.

[Telok]

In a higher level game with npc casters able to throw around banish, hamster ball, and dc 18+ wis/cha/int save or lose on the barbarian & fighter, counterspell is more about protecting the front line meat bags than anything else. Besides, its the only real "help allies" reaction my warlock has access to. What, I should let the fighter sit out the rest of the fight, or watch the barby lose all the hp in a single three crit multiattack, and instead maybe make a 1d4 opportunity attack at 16th level?

Now personally I feel that reactions and general non-damage combat options are handled badly in 5e. And turning npc spells into non-spell/non-magic actions on a lol-random basis has devalued counterspell anyways. Its no reason to drop one of very few "help the team" reactions for casters.

[Amnestic]

In a higher level game with npc casters able to throw around banish, hamster ball, and dc 18+ wis/cha/int save or lose on the barbarian & fighter, counterspell is more about protecting the front line meat bags than anything else. Besides, its the only real "help allies" reaction my warlock has access to. What, I should let the fighter sit out the rest of the fight, or watch the barby lose all the hp in a single three crit multiattack, and instead maybe make a 1d4 opportunity attack at 16th level?

One could argue that if the only counter to such spells is another specific spell (that isn't on every caster's list - bards, clerics, druids, paladins and rangers don't get it) then that's not great design we should be encouraging.

Concentration exists to shatter those hard crowd controls usually, and that's a universal mechanic.



Now personally I feel that reactions and general non-damage combat options are handled badly in 5e. And turning npc spells into non-spell/non-magic actions on a lol-random basis has devalued counterspell anyways. Its no reason to drop one of very few "help the team" reactions for casters.

Is that a problem? What "help the team" reaction does a rogue or monk get? Why are the arcanists - the 'selfish' casters - getting the Counterspell instead of the divine ('support') casters?

[Ionathus]

As far as I can tell, this amounts to: I have an image in my mind of how combats are supposed to go, and these spells are disrupting it.

You can house rule Counterspell and Dispel Magic out of existence, of course, but for games run by others, my advice is to adjust the image in your mind to match what the game's actually telling you.

On one level: guilty as charged. I like creating big "oh no" moments for my players, and a powerful spell picked from the spell list at the right moment in combat is a good way of accomplishing that.

On another level: Whenever I design an opponent with spells, and I want them to account for counterspell, whatever mitigations I put in place feel way more like "having an image in my mind of how it's supposed to go." If a wizard is savvy about counterspell and is waiting in the wings with their own counter-counterspell, plus has a minion ready to counter-counter-counter-counterspell just in case? That feels way more contrived. Counterspell is the only ability in 5e (unless I'm missing something) that can completely negate somebody else's action while it's happening, and I feel like that dynamic is so over-tuned that it mucks up everything around it, and ruins the flow of the game when it happens. That's why I don't think I've ever counterspelled my PCs (or banned counterspell for their use) -- because I want them to be able to do their cool ****.

On another another level: I don't care how they fight the demon, man. I just want them to fight it. Sometimes it's cooler to summon the demon in the middle of the battle, for pacing or surprise or flavor. If I had the baddie summon their demon 6 seconds before the PCs enter the room, how is that any less of "having an image in my mind of how combats are supposed to go?" They still wind up fighting a demon. The baddie was still powerful enough to summon it. The overall challenge is the same. I find it annoying that this specific fiddly interaction can gum up that calculation.


I do see where you're coming from, and you're not off any rocker for having a problem with it.

I kind of mixed feelings on it. There are thematic reasons I really like it, it gives a notable edge in magical duels that it helps set apart the spell lists that do and don't feature them. It gives something to the interaction of two wizards slinging spells at each other, things shield and absorb element don't really do, that make it feel like they're really fighting and defending themselves with magic. Sometimes, a wizard duel is just cool.

But I don't like how it's so good in its area that it feels like a must-prepare. And it can make every wizard duel feel the same (though, with how spells are designed in 5e, I'm not sure they'd end up any different then a cleric fight (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html) if it was removed.)

Good points here. I don't know the best way to replace it either, though I do think having caster-duel specific mechanics based around mitigation rather than nullification would definitely be fun.


It's a defense against magic in an edition that has LESS defense against magic built into it.

Precisely why I'd love to have better defenses against magic than an all-or-nothing nullification button. I don't disagree with your point about saves - I wish 5e improved all saves as PCs grew stronger - but that's not an excuse for Counterspell, Counterspell is just using that problem as a crutch to justify its existence.


Then get used to being unhappy, or play Blades in the Dark, Shadowrun, Runequest, or any of dozens of other games.

"If you don't like this single out-of-place feature of the game, then just play something entirely different" ? No thanks, I'd rather fix the thing I don't like.


I agree with this. I'm moving toward a design where countering "spells" is something various classes get to do with different constraints, rather than being a spell.

Like say barbarians just make it so any caster in their reach has to make a check to succeed on casting a spell (or using other magical abilities) because the barbarian just has this aura of chaotic primal power.

Or sorcerers can make magic misfire (the closest to the wizard duel thing).

Etc.

Bake it into the classes and tune it for that particular class.

Having it accessible to more classes, or introducing other ways to make spellcasting more dicey, would be fun. Didn't 3.5e have a mechanic for casting spells while threatened, and it would fizzle if you messed up? I do like giving martials a way to be a bit more imposing to spellcasters.

I probably still wouldn't love it if the fail state was "nothing happens and you waste the spell," though: in a bigger redesign, I might push for every spell to have a "fail state" version, where it only has a partial effect or the caster takes rebound damage. Or I might push for an even bigger redesign of spellcasting altogether -- in case you didn't notice, I've got strong opinions about how arbitrary spellcasting feels when compared to the much-better-tuned martial combat mechanics.

[Atranen]

I'm ok with counterspell, for the reasons Korvin has mentioned.

I'm not ok with dispel magic though :smalltongue:. Mostly it works fine, but for long term effects (like Forbiddance, Hallow), a spellcaster has to spend a significant amount of time and money in order to get a nice defensive effect, and it goes down with one dispel magic. It seems they need another system for 'permanent' effects.

[Ionathus]

In a higher level game with npc casters able to throw around banish, hamster ball, and dc 18+ wis/cha/int save or lose on the barbarian & fighter, counterspell is more about protecting the front line meat bags than anything else. Besides, its the only real "help allies" reaction my warlock has access to. What, I should let the fighter sit out the rest of the fight, or watch the barby lose all the hp in a single three crit multiattack, and instead maybe make a 1d4 opportunity attack at 16th level?

Now personally I feel that reactions and general non-damage combat options are handled badly in 5e. And turning npc spells into non-spell/non-magic actions on a lol-random basis has devalued counterspell anyways. Its no reason to drop one of very few "help the team" reactions for casters.

I agree completely - high-level parties need ways to support each other and keep magic bulls*** from incapacitating the mundane characters. I just think that Counterspell does a disservice to that goal, by creating a boring-but-incentivized mechanic where there's an opportunity to have a more dynamic, interesting mechanic in its place.


One could argue that if the only counter to such spells is another specific spell (that isn't on every caster's list - bards, clerics, druids, paladins and rangers don't get it) then that's not great design we should be encouraging.

Concentration exists to shatter those hard crowd controls usually, and that's a universal mechanic.

Is that a problem? What "help the team" reaction does a rogue or monk get? Why are the arcanists - the 'selfish' casters - getting the Counterspell instead of the divine ('support') casters?

Great point about Concentration. I love how Concentration in 5e has helped level the playing field and make spellcasters respect mundane martials.

Also a very good point about "selfish" casters :smallbiggrin: I think you could argue that divine "support" casters already get healing and things like Lesser/Greater restoration, which can often mitigate the effects of a spell they weren't able to counterspell. In my ideal spellcasting system, spells like the Restorations would be incentivized to cast -- despite preparing them on every caster capable of them, I've never been in a situation as a player where they were worth the cast. And when they have as specific a use as that, I think that's a failing of the system.

[Ionathus]

I'm ok with counterspell, for the reasons Korvin has mentioned.

I'm not ok with dispel magic though :smalltongue:. Mostly it works fine, but for long term effects (like Forbiddance, Hallow), a spellcaster has to spend a significant amount of time and money in order to get a nice defensive effect, and it goes down with one dispel magic. It seems they need another system for 'permanent' effects.

I never played older TTRPGs, though I remember a similar dynamic with BGII (using modified AD&D) where there were multiple levels of protection spells, and some could only be affected by "spells X level and above".

It's not a perfect solution, but I definitely agree there should be tiers of this stuff. Right now every magical effect can either be destroyed by a 5th level party given enough time, or the magical effect is immune to everything except XYZ that the players don't have yet. Same thing with Remove Curse - there's no baseline challenge to overcome, you just cast the spell and bam, complication nullified painlessly. Or the DM invents some random reason the spell doesn't work this time, which I've done before and always feels contrived.

These arbitrary mechanics don't feel great in an open-ended game that's supposedly about player choice.

[da newt]

Personally I agree - I don't enjoy counter-counter-counter spell encounters. It's tedious and complex and can make folks feel like their action/reaction/spell slot were completely wasted (and frustrate the martial PC who is a passive observer to all this).

W/ badguys they don't have to worry about rationing spell slots for a whole adventuring day. They can NOVA to their heart's content so it's something a DM can encounter design around by throwing bad counterspellers into the mix.

I don't have an issue w/ dispell - IMO it serves it's purpose well. Team 1 casts a nasty spell, it takes effect, team 2 spends an action un-doing it at cost. For me this is a fair trade and good game design.

I do like the idea of more specific counters - if you have the right spell prepped, you can nullify a foe's spell - but the blanket 'NOPE' spell isn't good design IMO (especially when certain subclasses can all but guaranty successes).

I also really dislike the game design of monster spell like effects that just skip the spell casting bit and are somehow an ability and not a spell. So dumb.

But on the other hand, counterspell has been around forever and you can counter it, so even though I don't like it, it doesn't break anything either.

[clash]

I had the same problem. Mechanically counter spell isn't necessarily too sing m strong it just feels really bad, especially when used against pcs. I house ruled it a long time ago. Now instead of negating a spell it reduces the save DC of the spell by 2 points per spell level spent. Kinda like a reactive bless in a way. Usually this means they will make their save but not always and it's a lot more fun leaving things to the dice then just nope your spell didn't work. Too bad.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having it accessible to more classes, or introducing other ways to make spellcasting more dicey, would be fun. Didn't 3.5e have a mechanic for casting spells while threatened, and it would fizzle if you messed up? I do like giving martials a way to be a bit more imposing to spellcasters.

I probably still wouldn't love it if the fail state was "nothing happens and you waste the spell," though: in a bigger redesign, I might push for every spell to have a "fail state" version, where it only has a partial effect or the caster takes rebound damage. Or I might push for an even bigger redesign of spellcasting altogether -- in case you didn't notice, I've got strong opinions about how arbitrary spellcasting feels when compared to the much-better-tuned martial combat mechanics.

Oh, I'm currently redesigning spellcasting a fair bit. No more spell levels, for one thing. And splitting the effects that are currently levels 5- from 6+, with the latter being more like Mystic Arcana than raw spell list spells.

As for fail states, yeah. And that's one place where I think that class-specific, rather than generic, counters would be best--you can tune it based on the person doing the countering.

Note: most of this is high level. Spell-casting enemies just aren't that frequent, for me, below about T3. So I'm focusing on T3 for most of these.

So a barbarian (in this model) is basically a walking "screw you" to casters...up close. They can burn a limited resource to just flat end any spell effect within 5 ft of them. And at higher level, they can reaction force hard save or waste the turn.

Paladins might be able to just exclude the area of their aura from any spells (spending a resource). Or possibly just drastically reduce the force of those spells. It's less of a hard counter, but it means that casting spells at the paladin is a bad idea.

Fighters might get the "casting near me provokes" thing.

Rogues might get ways to silence casters (garrotes, etc).

Anyone (via a skill unlock) could pick up ways to suppress spellcasting components when enemies are grappled.

These are all "it fails, but leaves them in a bad place/they take damage" state.

Sorcerers might get "spell misfires, roll on table to see what happens." Or maybe "spell misfires, result depends on school of spell".

My overhaul is completely reworking wizards, so, yeah. They (or their replacement) would do something else.

[Telok]

One could argue....

Concentration exists to shatter those hard crowd controls usually, and that's a universal mechanic.

Is that a problem?...


Now personally I feel that reactions and general non-damage combat options are handled badly in 5e.

As I said. Its nice you agree. Although concentration is pretty weakly implemented too. We haven't broken a concentration spell on an npc in a few levels, they all apparently have decent con or roll well on the few times we can hit them during concentration. We also have a cleric who hasn't lost concentration on anything because his first two feats were for that (though it did noticably screw his save dcs and made him stop casting offense spells). My character only loses concentration in small box room fights or against stuff that has 60+ foot teleport/flight speeds, anything outdoors or against less mobile foes is trivial to keep concentration up. Breaking concentration is a pretty weak option even on the times the npc casters are using actual spells anymore.

[Ionathus]

As I said. Its nice you agree. Although concentration is pretty weakly implemented too. We haven't broken a concentration spell on an npc in a few levels, they all apparently have decent con or roll well on the few times we can hit them during concentration. We also have a cleric who hasn't lost concentration on anything because his first two feats were for that (though it did noticably screw his save dcs and made him stop casting offense spells). My character only loses concentration in small box room fights or against stuff that has 60+ foot teleport/flight speeds, anything outdoors or against less mobile foes is trivial to keep concentration up. Breaking concentration is a pretty weak option even on the times the npc casters are using actual spells anymore.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to tune any spellcasting PC to be nigh-immune to broken concentration, especially if you get a few levels' wiggle room for CON ASIs or picking up Warcaster.

I wonder if it would be way overpowered to change the threshold for the Concentration save DC somehow -- one thought I had was adding multiple sources of damage together, to make "multiple smaller attacks" compound so they're still threatening to concentration (For example, three successful monk attacks combine for 16+14+12 = 42/2 = a single DC 21 save).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, it's pretty easy to tune any spellcasting PC to be nigh-immune to broken concentration, especially if you get a few levels' wiggle room for CON ASIs or picking up Warcaster.

I wonder if it would be way overpowered to change the threshold for the Concentration save DC somehow -- one thought I had was adding multiple sources of damage together, to make "multiple smaller attacks" compound so they're still threatening to concentration (For example, three successful monk attacks combine for 16+14+12 = 42/2 = a single DC 21 save).

I've thought about this myself. Combine resilient CON + Warcaster and concentration is basically impossible to break unless you're hitting hard enough in a single attack to hit 60+ dmg. And since the vast majority of monsters (basically everyone but giants and dragons' breath weapons) scales with number of attacks/damage sources, not size of any given hit, and this makes minions (who should be great at breaking concentration) basically ineffective for this.

I'd say "DC = (regular DC) + 5[1] for every individual damage hit they've taken since the start of their last turn other than this one" might work.

The idea is that a single hit has to be really big to break concentration, but a monk-type (tons of small attacks) or a bunch of minions should be really great at shattering concentration.

[1] or 2 if 5 is too much.

[Amnestic]

As I said. Its nice you agree. Although concentration is pretty weakly implemented too. We haven't broken a concentration spell on an npc in a few levels, they all apparently have decent con or roll well on the few times we can hit them during concentration. We also have a cleric who hasn't lost concentration on anything because his first two feats were for that (though it did noticably screw his save dcs and made him stop casting offense spells). My character only loses concentration in small box room fights or against stuff that has 60+ foot teleport/flight speeds, anything outdoors or against less mobile foes is trivial to keep concentration up. Breaking concentration is a pretty weak option even on the times the npc casters are using actual spells anymore.

I mean I guess it kinda depends on what you're fighting. The CR12 Archmage with a 9th level spell available to it? Con save of +1.

You're not wrong that other caster monsters often do have better saves though, especially as you climb in levels. But even then spellcasters are generally better poised to shatter concentration than martials - typically the stabby guy only can do so via stabbing (often triggering only a DC10 check unless the on-hit damage exceeds 21, which isn't typical or even possible outside of crits for some builds), but casters can target other saves (typically Wis) to Incapacitate to break Concentration, or use a big number damage spell (your average fireball will at least boost it to DC14) so that their save bonus is less effective. They banish your guy? You banish them right back, and that breaks their banishment - targeting the typically weak Chasave no less.

[Kane0]

How about this as an alternative?

Spell Ward
3rd level Abjuration
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

One creature you touch is enveloped in an aura of warding. Until the spell ends, any time the warded creature is targeted by a hostile spell or spell attack the caster must succeed on a spellcasting ability check against your Spell DC in order to affect the warded creature.

No upcasting, or maybe +1 target per spell level if you're feeling generous.

[Brookshw]

I also find it boring, especially if there are multiple PC casters in the party ,they will recast it as soon as the first one fails. By the same token, if there are a bunch of enemy casters the combat it can quickly get bogged down with nothing happening while everything is countered. There's also something thematically annoying with a caster counterspelling the counterspell aimed at them, thereby interrupting their own casting to pull it off.

I can live with it, but I'd rather it weaken a spell by giving either disadvantage on an attack roll with it, advantage on a save against it, and cancelling any other spell subject to it's existing rules.

[Reynaert]

I think my main gripe with counterspell is that it's so boring. Both outcomes are very very boring. It just doesn't feel anything like even remotely fun. Even if you're interested in game mechanics and game tactics. Back when I played M:tG, counterspell builds were the lamest of the lame. They just sucked all the fun out. This is the same.

How about this tweak radical change:

If a spellcaster within range casts a spell, you can cast counterspell as a reaction.
This suspends the spellcaster's spell until the counterspell is resolved.
On each of their respective turns, as an action, the spellcaster and counterspeller may make a spellcasting check and add it to their total.
As soon as the original spellcaster reaches the spell level times ten, the spell goes off as normal.
But if the counterspeller reaches the spell level times ten first, the spell is countered and does nothing.

I think this needs a bit of work (numbers, concentration or not, counterspelling the counterspell, taking damage, ganging up on the spellcasters, targets moving out of range, etc), but it could be a good start for a more epic view on counterspelling, and also create interesting gameplay mechanics.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm ok with counterspell, for the reasons Korvin has mentioned.

I'm not ok with dispel magic though :smalltongue:. Mostly it works fine, but for long term effects (like Forbiddance, Hallow), a spellcaster has to spend a significant amount of time and money in order to get a nice defensive effect, and it goes down with one dispel magic. It seems they need another system for 'permanent' effects. It can fail against any spell above 3rd level unless you invest a higher spell slot to deal with it. Maybe one could remove up casting DM?

How about this as an alternative?

Spell Ward
3rd level Abjuration
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

One creature you touch is enveloped in an aura of warding. Until the spell ends, any time the warded creature is targeted by a hostile spell or spell attack the caster must succeed on a spellcasting ability check against your Spell DC in order to affect the warded creature.

No upcasting, or maybe +1 target per spell level if you're feeling generous. Yes up casting. Neat idea.

I also find it boring, This tiresome litany - and you are not the first to trot it out - is not an argument, it's a matter of taste. If you find it boring Don't Use It.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh, I'm currently redesigning spellcasting a fair bit. No more spell levels, for one thing. And splitting the effects that are currently levels 5- from 6+, with the latter being more like Mystic Arcana than raw spell list spells.

As for fail states, yeah. And that's one place where I think that class-specific, rather than generic, counters would be best--you can tune it based on the person doing the countering.

Note: most of this is high level. Spell-casting enemies just aren't that frequent, for me, below about T3. So I'm focusing on T3 for most of these.

So a barbarian (in this model) is basically a walking "screw you" to casters...up close. They can burn a limited resource to just flat end any spell effect within 5 ft of them. And at higher level, they can reaction force hard save or waste the turn.

Paladins might be able to just exclude the area of their aura from any spells (spending a resource). Or possibly just drastically reduce the force of those spells. It's less of a hard counter, but it means that casting spells at the paladin is a bad idea.

Fighters might get the "casting near me provokes" thing.

Rogues might get ways to silence casters (garrotes, etc).

Anyone (via a skill unlock) could pick up ways to suppress spellcasting components when enemies are grappled.

These are all "it fails, but leaves them in a bad place/they take damage" state.

Sorcerers might get "spell misfires, roll on table to see what happens." Or maybe "spell misfires, result depends on school of spell".

My overhaul is completely reworking wizards, so, yeah. They (or their replacement) would do something else.
Are we going to play test this in Campaign Four?

[Atranen]

It can fail against any spell above 3rd level unless you invest a higher spell slot to deal with it. Maybe one could remove up casting DM?

I'd look at the other way first--keep up casting, then it succeeds automatically, or it fails automatically. No rolling in case the levels don't match. That may be a good fix for counterspell too; especially if you don't know the spell being case, you have to be careful about when and what slot to use.

I don't think it fixes long term effects though. At the moment, permanent forbiddance requires an 11th level caster to burn their highest level level slot (6th) every day for a month, and spend 1,000 gp on top of that. If a 5th level caster has a ~40-50% chance to break that with a 3rd level slot (or 70% if they burnt enhance ability or are lucky, or 100% if they have a divination wizard in the party)...yeah, no good.

Axing the roll would at least force a level 11 caster to burn a level 6 slot, which seems more equally matched. But the rolling is fun for combat scenarios, so I think they just need a separate dispelling system for permanent effects.

[Brookshw]

This tiresome litany - and you are not the first to trot it out - is not an argument, it's a matter of taste. If you find it boring Don't Use It.

Of course it's a matter of taste, everything is a matter of taste, from whether you like D&D's class design principals to opinions on weapon properties. Since when has that been relevant, any why point out the obvious in a thread about an opinion :smallconfused:

[MinimanMidget]

I'm not convinced that Counterspell is the problem. The problem is Mage Slayer. Making interrupting spells a feat, and making that feat worthless, means spells are functionally unstoppable. So we get Counterspell, which is too reliable, and only available to spellcasters. If it was possible for anyone to interrupt spellcasting, Counterspell wouldn't need to exist. For example, "if you take damage while casting a spell, make a Concentration check or lose the spell". Everyone, spellcaster or otherwise, can exploit it with readied actions. Then you'd make Mage Slayer "you can make an opportunity attack when someone within reach starts casting a spell", keep the disadvantage on Concentration checks, and it's a feat worth taking. You might need to tweak the maths on Concentration checks a bit, so that it's not automatic success.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are we going to play test this in Campaign Four?

At this point it's part of NIH system, which...who knows if it will be in a play-testable state by then.

Current pdf (which is an amalgam of the 5e SRD and a few changes, all turned into a LaTeX format and then built, so ugly and incomplete): NIH pdf (https://github.com/bentomhall/nih-system/blob/feature/skill-tricks/main.pdf)

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not convinced that Counterspell is the problem. The problem is Mage Slayer. Making interrupting spells a feat, and making that feat worthless, means spells are functionally unstoppable. So we get Counterspell, which is too reliable, and only available to spellcasters. If it was possible for anyone to interrupt spellcasting, Counterspell wouldn't need to exist. The problem with that is the first few PC levels, I think, so they didn't do that.

For example, "if you take damage while casting a spell, make a Concentration check or lose the spell". Everyone, spellcaster or otherwise, can exploit it with readied actions. Then you'd make Mage Slayer "you can make an opportunity attack when someone within reach starts casting a spell", keep the disadvantage on Concentration checks, and it's a feat worth taking. You might need to tweak the maths on Concentration checks a bit, so that it's not automatic success. Interesting idea. No few of my players who are 3.x veterans have suggested something like this. They want the 'casting while engaged in melee' to have a risk/cost.


Current pdf (which is an amalgam of the 5e SRD and a few changes, all turned into a LaTeX format and then built, so ugly and incomplete): NIH pdf (https://github.com/bentomhall/nih-system/blob/feature/skill-tricks/main.pdf) Goodness. I'll be offering feedback, sporadically, via our usual dischord as I read through and stumble through this work in progress.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Goodness. I'll be offering feedback, sporadically, via our usual dischord as I read through and stumble through this work in progress.
Expect changes. A lot of things are just the SRD text. I've gone through and started a bunch of passes, but I have the consistency of a meth'd up squirrel in a yard full of nuts. So it's a bit of this, a bit of that, etc.

Oh, and PRs accepted :smallbiggrin: As is theft if anyone finds anything interesting--I intentionally licensed the part that isn't SRD stuff (using the CC-BY version) with the same license.

Currently working on skill tricks. Have some in there, but yeah.

[GeneralVryth]

I won't comment too in-depth because at the end of the day, taste is taste.

For the base 5e rules, I think the place where counterspell fits the best rhythm/feel in 5e isn't when it's the big guy tossing out spells, but 2 or 3 of his associates. In this situation counterspell is ideally just taking the edge off or maybe stopping the most dangerous of the volley coming the parties if they accurately recognize the spell and judge the likely threat. Even a relatively high level party (I am thinking 11+) can get leveled by what would be CR2 or CR3 NPC casters that can cast before the party spreads out.

As for the big bad who you really want to get their spell off, there is the elegant explanation of the subtle spell metamagic and actual feat (metamagic adept) for how one may get a couple of uses of it. And it's only natural in a world where magic is common or semi-common place that mages would try and work on tricks to avoid being countered. When thought out I think don't this is particularly convoluted, nor does it rely on any internal inconsistency acting like something that is magic, isn't.

As for taste, counter-counterspell feels wrong. It also makes the resolution more extended than it needs to be. I do also, think alternative counter and dispel options make sense when the situation calls for it. Readying an action to disrupt a spell causing a concentration check feels right. Same with bringing down a firewall using a water/ice spell (or lots of mundane water/ice) as a pseudo dispel.

[TaiLiu]

I think some of us in this thread argue that counterspell itself is just a symptom of larger problems in D&D 5e. My argument is that counterspell is part of a larger problem, which is that D&D is terribly binary.

You either pass the save or you fail. Your attack hits or misses. Your ability checks succeed or don't. Some spells have partially effects when targets succeed on their checks—mostly the spells that call for dexterity saves. But that's really it. The rest is binary.

And that means counterspell is, too. It'd be nice if the spell could work as a kind of dampener or transformer. It'd mean the arcanist gets to weaken or twist the big bad evil spell and save the party from total destruction... And it'd mean that the party still has to face whatever magical threat the villain has conjured.

The party still gets to have a cool fight scene. The arcanist gets to be effective, and so does the villain. Everyone wins. But that'd require a major reworking of D&D's mechanics. So we get counterspell.

[Pex]

I agree with this. I'm moving toward a design where countering "spells" is something various classes get to do with different constraints, rather than being a spell.

Like say barbarians just make it so any caster in their reach has to make a check to succeed on casting a spell (or using other magical abilities) because the barbarian just has this aura of chaotic primal power.

Or sorcerers can make magic misfire (the closest to the wizard duel thing).

Etc.

Bake it into the classes and tune it for that particular class.

If everyone can counter a spell then just ban all magic already.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If everyone can counter a spell then just ban all magic already.

Oh lordy. Something where casters aren't the hands down best anymore. The world must be ending and I must hate casters. /Sarcasm.

Yeah no. For one thing... This is PCs. Not monsters. I'm firmly embracing the difference. This is not competitive. PCs aren't facing PCs. Monsters may be able to counter spells sometimes, but much more rarely. PCs get built in license to do cool things. Monsters don't.

For another... Everything has a cost. Every time you counter, you're spending resources that could have gone to other things. Including stuff like rage, other spells, etc.

[Sindal]

All im gonna say
Is that I sure wished we had someone with counterspell at my last session herr some key npc civilians got fireballed to heck.

[Leon]

As a stand alone spell its not that good, back when it was a option part of Dispel magic it was good.

[Amnestic]

I will say I just deployed two repeated-counterspelling creatures (slightly adjusted arcanaphages, from kobold press) against a party of mostly spellcasters and it was a pretty miserable time for them. Even though the party outnumbered them 5 to 2, so they literally couldn't counterspell everything the party threw out due to not having enough reactions, but just the threat of doing so was enough to ward them off for the most part.


All im gonna say
Is that I sure wished we had someone with counterspell at my last session herr some key npc civilians got fireballed to heck.

Ideally if they were 'notable' they'd have got death saves, though I suppose if they were using a commoner statblock or something then massive damage would have just wiped them out anyway?

Though if it had been a dragon breath or illithid mind blast it wouldn't have helped either way.

[da_chicken]

I will agree Counterspell is a poor design overall, especially because it has the upcast feature. It sways the game towards attrition rather than tactics or strategy, which is not particularly interesting. It's also kind of silly because it encourages having villains with an entourage of spellcasters whose primary purpose is to counter spells.

The Xanathar's spell-identification mechanic is so clearly a backdoor Counterspell nerf that I don't think anybody uses it unless they're unhappy with Counterspell and also refuse to ban it from their game. It also creates this weird procedural gameplay vs mechanics impedance because for the majority of the game when you take an action you just say what you do. "I cast Fireball." Except Counterspell encourages you to say, "I cast a spell." It's obnoxious, easy to forget, and isn't fun.

Dispel Magic, on the other hand, I think is pretty good. There's a whole range of spells that it can't do anything about (instantaneous spells), and it can be used to purge ongoing magical effects that the party encounters even if there's no combat going on. Even better, it's powerful but most of the time if you prepare it, it doesn't actually come up. Sometimes even against casters.

I think Counterspell would be fine as a once-per-rest ability of the Abjurer or similar subclass, but I don't like it as a spell you can repeatedly cast.

[Xervous]

If your PCs aren't in danger of falling 500ft in every combat encounter, you're doing it wrong. :smallcool: (This message brought to you by the Crumbling Castle Towers Collective)

It was never specifically about Featherfall or any one of those effects. It’s about actions for which the game offers one or few options to consider. In the binary of Counterspell Y/N you always see it tossed at the fancy stuff because 1: it’s a good use of resources and 2: there’s been nothing else to use that reaction for. Aid another is a helpful action, and there’s the common refrain of having a familiar spam it because the familiar has nothing better to consider or do.

In order to make counterspell’s usage a possibility rather than its current flowchart operation, Reactions need to see more important, useful, and sometimes situational things vying for the action. As much as I like the sound of that, I’m uncertain if this should be bolted on to 5e. Design for the baseline value of an action should be a foundational piece of the system. But of course 5e didn’t really consider bonus actions and reactions from the start.

[KorvinStarmast]

Expect changes. {snip} Currently working on skill tricks. Have some in there, but yeah. OK, I'll offer input/suggestions as time allows. (House repair/remodel still underway, so spare time is scarce).

For the base 5e rules, I think the place where counterspell fits the best rhythm / feel in 5e isn't when it's the big guy tossing out spells, but 2 or 3 of his associates. Agree.

In this situation counterspell is ideally just taking the edge off or maybe stopping the most dangerous of the volley coming the parties way if they accurately recognize the spell and judge the likely threat. Even a relatively high level party (I am thinking 11+) can get leveled by what would be CR2 or CR3 NPC casters that can cast before the party spreads out. I have seen this play out a few times.

As for the big bad who you really want to get their spell off, there is the elegant explanation of the subtle spell metamagic and actual feat (metamagic adept) for how one may get a couple of uses of it. And it's only natural in a world where magic is common or semi-common place that mages would try and work on tricks to avoid being countered. When thought out I think don't this is particularly convoluted, nor does it rely on any internal inconsistency acting like something that is magic, isn't.
Or have more Legendary Actions include stuff like "casts a spell" This is where I look at the tactical lay out of the battle. If there's some kind of visual obstruction, I either use a passive Perception check (I keep a 3x5 card with stuff like that handy) for the player (s) with counterspell versus a DC of 15 (plus or minus 2 is the range) based on what obstructions to seeing someone cast a spell are present. Sometimes, nothing. Sometimes, like an ogre in your face, there's a chance for the Line of Sight to be interfered with.

As for taste, counter-counterspell feels wrong. It also makes the resolution more extended than it needs to be. Concur. I also like the fire and ice idea, but the devs didn't put the work into that. Unfortunate.

I think some of us in this thread argue that counterspell itself is just a symptom of larger problems in D&D 5e. My argument is that counterspell is part of a larger problem, which is that D&D is terribly binary.

You either pass the save or you fail. Your attack hits or misses. Your ability checks succeed or don't. Some spells have partially effects when targets succeed on their checks—mostly the spells that call for dexterity saves. But that's really it. The rest is binary.

And that means counterspell is, too. It'd be nice if the spell could work as a kind of dampener or transformer. It'd mean the arcanist gets to weaken or twist the big bad evil spell and save the party from total destruction... And it'd mean that the party still has to face whatever magical threat the villain has conjured.

The party still gets to have a cool fight scene. The arcanist gets to be effective, and so does the villain. Everyone wins. But that'd require a major reworking of D&D's mechanics. So we get counterspell. Well, the attempt to simplify things results in stuff like this. The basic design is supposed to keep barriers to entry and complexity low. (There was variable success in doing this, and the spell system gets more complex as one goes up in level, to be sure).

All im gonna say
Is that I sure wished we had someone with counterspell at my last session herr some key npc civilians got fireballed to heck. But would any of your players have countered a friendly spell? Interesting question. I think I have seen that done once in nine years of 5e.

As a stand alone spell its not that good, back when it was a option part of Dispel magic it was good. Was that 3.x or 4e?

I will agree Counterspell is a poor design overall, especially because it has the upcast feature. That's a fair point. If it can only be cast at third level, then you have to make an Ability check to counter the higher level spell. Not a bad mod if you find it to be over used.


It's also kind of silly because it encourages having villains with an entourage of spellcasters whose primary purpose is to counter spells.
If the party is clever, they persuade those henchmen to betray the villain ... :smallbiggrin:

The Xanathar's spell-identification mechanic is so clearly a backdoor Counterspell nerf that I don't think anybody uses it unless they're unhappy with Counterspell and also refuse to ban it from their game. It's clunky, and I don't use it.


Dispel Magic, on the other hand, I think is pretty good. There's a whole range of spells that it can't do anything about (instantaneous spells), and it can be used to purge ongoing magical effects that the party encounters even if there's no combat going on. Even better, it's powerful but most of the time if you prepare it, it doesn't actually come up. Sometimes even against casters. That's been our experience.


In order to make counterspell’s usage a possibility rather than its current flowchart operation, Reactions need to see more important, useful, and sometimes situational things vying for the action. As much as I like the sound of that, I’m uncertain if this should be bolted on to 5e. Design for the baseline value of an action should be a foundational piece of the system. But of course 5e didn’t really consider bonus actions and reactions from the start. IMO, the Fighter needs to have a baseline reaction available at all times for things like "grab a falling team mate" or "trip someone trying to run past" and so on. (Similar to how cunning action as a BA is available to rogues from early on).

Reactions being narrowly available may have been an attempt to keep the game simple, but I think they could have expanded (for fighters, and maybe for a barbarian to use a reaction to trigger rage) that mechanic with good effect.

[False God]

I think counterspelling needs some tweaks to be better, but its fundamental to reactive gameplay, which D&D is already pretty terrible at, so I'm strongly against making D&D any less reactive.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think counterspelling needs some tweaks to be better, but its fundamental to reactive gameplay, which D&D is already pretty terrible at, so I'm strongly against making D&D any less reactive.
Captured some of what I was thinking better than I could have said that. +1 :smallsmile:

[False God]

Captured some of what I was thinking better than I could have said that. +1 :smallsmile:

Your thoughts on fighters/martials having more reactive abilities also echo my own preferences.

----------
I come from being an MTG player into D&D and other roleplaying games. There's certainly a viable approach to "I throw down my big monsters and attack." followed up by the other player saying "I throw down my big monsters and attack!" and going back and forth. This sort of play, IMO, is D&D in a nutshell. I attack, they attack, you attack, rinse repeat.

But MTG also provides the option to respond to the opponents action and the ability to respond in turn to that. It can get quite out of hand if you've got two decks which a lot of response options, which I don't think would be very good for D&D. But where it is limited, either because hand sizes are appropriately moderated or the deck itself has a limited number of possible responses, I feel it works well to provide that feeling of choice of "do I allow this thing to go through and risk the results on the table, or do I try to stop it and reduce my limited responses further?"

I agree that 5E limited reactions to speed up the game and keep things simple, but I think it really missed the mark going from "INFINITE REACTIONS! of 3.5 and 4E's reactions to reactions to one." Encouraging tactical, reactive gameplay is clearly not the intention of this or the next edition, which is sad.

Personally my ideal solution is replacing the "Action/Bonus" system with 2 actions, if the goal remains to keep things restricted, and allow players to save their Action(s) for a response. And if none is taken, just take their turn at the end of the round. Of course, I'm always a big fan of group inititave and more tactical combat rather than static turn orders. You'd probably have to reduce spell damage to avoid nova-ing, but I'm not sure that's not a feature of my solution rather than a bug; or you'd need some more restricted rules on how you can make your attacks on your turn, but I think that is contrary to the design ideal of 2 Actions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your thoughts on fighters/martials having more reactive abilities also echo my own preferences.

----------
I come from being an MTG player into D&D and other roleplaying games. There's certainly a viable approach to "I throw down my big monsters and attack." followed up by the other player saying "I throw down my big monsters and attack!" and going back and forth. This sort of play, IMO, is D&D in a nutshell. I attack, they attack, you attack, rinse repeat.

But MTG also provides the option to respond to the opponents action and the ability to respond in turn to that. It can get quite out of hand if you've got two decks which a lot of response options, which I don't think would be very good for D&D. But where it is limited, either because hand sizes are appropriately moderated or the deck itself has a limited number of possible responses, I feel it works well to provide that feeling of choice of "do I allow this thing to go through and risk the results on the table, or do I try to stop it and reduce my limited responses further?"

I agree that 5E limited reactions to speed up the game and keep things simple, but I think it really missed the mark going from "INFINITE REACTIONS! of 3.5 and 4E's reactions to reactions to one." Encouraging tactical, reactive gameplay is clearly not the intention of this or the next edition, which is sad.

Personally my ideal solution is replacing the "Action/Bonus" system with 2 actions, if the goal remains to keep things restricted, and allow players to save their Action(s) for a response. And if none is taken, just take their turn at the end of the round. Of course, I'm always a big fan of group inititave and more tactical combat rather than static turn orders. You'd probably have to reduce spell damage to avoid nova-ing, but I'm not sure that's not a feature of my solution rather than a bug; or you'd need some more restricted rules on how you can make your attacks on your turn, but I think that is contrary to the design ideal of 2 Actions.

Contrast this with the "30 minute rounds" thread.

More reactivity exponentially slows down the game, which means more disconnection from the game. Even things like counterspell do this a lot, because now you have to resolve any possible counterspells after each spell or risk having to do a rollback, which are even more costly. And then you have to worry about sequencing multiple reactions, etc.

Personally, I'd go the other way. Few reactions, turns are mostly one simple thing which moves combat along incrementally. Short cycle times means little or no analysis paralysis. Do thing that immediately resolves and/or move, done. Next person. Reactivity comes by having more, shorter turns, each of which you can react to on your next turn. Few, if any, "one shot" mechanics (ie things that have to be reacted/countered or you lose/suck). Most of the prevention should be predictive, not reactive. And yes, people should have tools to do so. Ways to make the caster worry about "do I cast this spell and risk getting whacked/stopped or do I do something else and get clear first".

Action economy optimization is the most abusable thing there is. And it becomes a necessity in a game that expects you to do so. Which makes it really hard for new players to get into it, same as it does people who aren't aggressive optimizers. It also drastically increases the load on the DM, since interrupts are hellaciously high-resource-consumption.

High-depth reactivity works well in MtG because it's a few-person competitive game that really only does one thing. There's no roleplay, no narrative, there's just playing pieces and "optimal strategies" (for whatever value of optimal you're personally going with). And even there, counterspell decks are obnoxious to play against.

That's not to say there shouldn't be any reactions, but they should be special things, the sort of "look at me, I'm so cool I can do this thing off turn" abilities that stand out.

[False God]

Contrast this with the "30 minute rounds" thread.

More reactivity exponentially slows down the game, which means more disconnection from the game. Even things like counterspell do this a lot, because now you have to resolve any possible counterspells after each spell or risk having to do a rollback, which are even more costly. And then you have to worry about sequencing multiple reactions, etc.
People say this, but referencing that thread, most delay stems from people simply not knowing how to play or not paying attention. The latter is actually resolved by increasing reactive options, you must pay attention, you can't just zone out and "take the damage".

Reactive gameplay in MTG is typically quick outside select deck builds designed to specifically play outside their normal turn. Long-turn-itis in MTG is largely a result of someone doing a whole bunch of stuff on their turn as opposed to in reaction to someone else.


Personally, I'd go the other way. Few reactions, turns are mostly one simple thing which moves combat along incrementally. Short cycle times means little or no analysis paralysis. Do thing that immediately resolves and/or move, done. Next person. Reactivity comes by having more, shorter turns, each of which you can react to on your next turn. Few, if any, "one shot" mechanics (ie things that have to be reacted/countered or you lose/suck). Most of the prevention should be predictive, not reactive. And yes, people should have tools to do so. Ways to make the caster worry about "do I cast this spell and risk getting whacked/stopped or do I do something else and get clear first".
Making turns faster doesn't add to reactivity at all.
Reactivity must be in the moment, otherwise all you've done is increase the speed at which we play "you attack, I attack, they attack, repeat". Dancing faster doesn't change the dance.


Action economy optimization is the most abusable thing there is. And it becomes a necessity in a game that expects you to do so. Which makes it really hard for new players to get into it, same as it does people who aren't aggressive optimizers. It also drastically increases the load on the DM, since interrupts are hellaciously high-resource-consumption.
They're only problematic when they're unnecessarily complex, which is something even MTG avoids in reactive cards.
DM: The bandit attacks you Dave for 18 to hit!
Dave: I use my action to riposte, 19!
DM: You successfully deflect the attack!
How is this complex or high resource consumption?


High-depth reactivity works well in MtG because it's a few-person competitive game that really only does one thing. There's no roleplay, no narrative, there's just playing pieces and "optimal strategies" (for whatever value of optimal you're personally going with). And even there, counterspell decks are obnoxious to play against.

That's not to say there shouldn't be any reactions, but they should be special things, the sort of "look at me, I'm so cool I can do this thing off turn" abilities that stand out.
I disagree strongly. Reduction in reactivity, particularly reducing it to big-ticket items will only result in players not using them, or utilizing them poorly. And for someone who has already used theirs, or doesn't have something particularly useful, it encourages "zone out from the game" since you have no ability to respond.

Referencing the 30-minute thread, not paying attention is symptomatic of unreactive play. When the player can do nothing in response to an attack or an event within the game, it encourages them to zone out until its their turn. At which point we're met with the ever predictable slowdown of "whats going on again?". While you won't get any argument from me that they should be paying attention regardless of whats going on, the "Someone remind me whats happening?" is a fault of D&Ds own making by not keeping players engaged when they are not the "active player".

You don't get this leeway in MTG. You must be paying attention. But again, D&D is going for low-overhead, low-investment, so it's not surprising they're creating a game where paying attention is not actually encouraged by the system.

Further, though its only really measured in tournaments and online, there is a limited window(30 seconds) in which you can respond to a spell or effect in MTG. Again, the system is placing demands on the "non-active player" to pay attention. D&D doesn't, so it's not surprising when people don't.

[Unoriginal]

Does your GM tell your group what the spell is as it's being cast?

Or do they go "[Enemy] starts casting a spell"? Or even "[Enemy] starts making sounds while moving their hands in a rythmic pattern"?

[Ionathus]

As for the big bad who you really want to get their spell off, there is the elegant explanation of the subtle spell metamagic and actual feat (metamagic adept) for how one may get a couple of uses of it. And it's only natural in a world where magic is common or semi-common place that mages would try and work on tricks to avoid being countered. When thought out I think don't this is particularly convoluted, nor does it rely on any internal inconsistency acting like something that is magic, isn't.

As for taste, counter-counterspell feels wrong. It also makes the resolution more extended than it needs to be. I do also, think alternative counter and dispel options make sense when the situation calls for it. Readying an action to disrupt a spell causing a concentration check feels right. Same with bringing down a firewall using a water/ice spell (or lots of mundane water/ice) as a pseudo dispel.

I do like exploring the implications of the "logical conclusion" that high-level magic users would come to. Being prepared for the most common anti-magic tactics, etc. But I agree, counter-counterspell in particular just doesn't feel fun and kind of feels like the caster is following "the D&D Meta" rather than acting rationally in the context of the world and their personality.


I think some of us in this thread argue that counterspell itself is just a symptom of larger problems in D&D 5e. My argument is that counterspell is part of a larger problem, which is that D&D is terribly binary.

You either pass the save or you fail. Your attack hits or misses. Your ability checks succeed or don't. Some spells have partially effects when targets succeed on their checks—mostly the spells that call for dexterity saves. But that's really it. The rest is binary.

And that means counterspell is, too. It'd be nice if the spell could work as a kind of dampener or transformer. It'd mean the arcanist gets to weaken or twist the big bad evil spell and save the party from total destruction... And it'd mean that the party still has to face whatever magical threat the villain has conjured.

The party still gets to have a cool fight scene. The arcanist gets to be effective, and so does the villain. Everyone wins. But that'd require a major reworking of D&D's mechanics. So we get counterspell.

All good points and I agree. I have the same bug stuck in my craw about binary ability checks and the randomness of the d20 as a resolution die. For attack modifiers or, say, Perception checks this isn't an issue because you'll make enough of them across a campaign that the math averages out and your modifier counts. But if you only ever make 4 Animal Handling checks in a campaign, luck can easily erase your Proficiency choice (positive or negative).

I particularly love the part I bolded above. That's my ideal scenario, everyone getting to feel effective while still encountering the villain's threat. "Choreographing" your encounters gets a lot of flak, but a counterspell in the wrong place can turn what was supposed to be a balanced and fun encounter into a boring curb-stomp.


Dispel Magic, on the other hand, I think is pretty good. There's a whole range of spells that it can't do anything about (instantaneous spells), and it can be used to purge ongoing magical effects that the party encounters even if there's no combat going on. Even better, it's powerful but most of the time if you prepare it, it doesn't actually come up. Sometimes even against casters.

I think Counterspell would be fine as a once-per-rest ability of the Abjurer or similar subclass, but I don't like it as a spell you can repeatedly cast.

Dispel Magic is better, but I still always feel bad when my PCs use it and they don't get any effect because guess what, that wasn't technically a spell even though it was magic! But yeah, Dispel at least allows the spell to have partial effect first so it feels like a victory to remove it.


It was never specifically about Featherfall or any one of those effects. It’s about actions for which the game offers one or few options to consider. In the binary of Counterspell Y/N you always see it tossed at the fancy stuff because 1: it’s a good use of resources and 2: there’s been nothing else to use that reaction for. Aid another is a helpful action, and there’s the common refrain of having a familiar spam it because the familiar has nothing better to consider or do.

In order to make counterspell’s usage a possibility rather than its current flowchart operation, Reactions need to see more important, useful, and sometimes situational things vying for the action. As much as I like the sound of that, I’m uncertain if this should be bolted on to 5e. Design for the baseline value of an action should be a foundational piece of the system. But of course 5e didn’t really consider bonus actions and reactions from the start.

Hopefully my reply didn't feel sarcastic! I agree completely with you, and I like having several reactions and needing to choose between tradeoffs. My most recent PC was a Battle Smith Artificer, and it was a constant question of choosing between Shield, Absorb Elements, and Flash of Genius every turn.

Flash of Genius, incidentally, being a great example of a reactionary mechanic that can mitigate a spell without nullifying it.

[Ionathus]

Personally, I'd go the other way. Few reactions, turns are mostly one simple thing which moves combat along incrementally. Short cycle times means little or no analysis paralysis. Do thing that immediately resolves and/or move, done. Next person. Reactivity comes by having more, shorter turns, each of which you can react to on your next turn. Few, if any, "one shot" mechanics (ie things that have to be reacted/countered or you lose/suck). Most of the prevention should be predictive, not reactive. And yes, people should have tools to do so. Ways to make the caster worry about "do I cast this spell and risk getting whacked/stopped or do I do something else and get clear first".

<snip>

That's not to say there shouldn't be any reactions, but they should be special things, the sort of "look at me, I'm so cool I can do this thing off turn" abilities that stand out.

I'm with you on this, and to demonstrate my thoughts am going to cite two board games that make me think about "nullification" effects.

Red Dragon Inn is a fun and fast-paced and low stakes game with a high degree of luck and a healthy (but not overdone) dose of wackiness. In particular, everybody has a various amount of "I don't think so!" cards, which can negate many other cards in the game, and can also negate each other. Sometimes at a key moment, you'll get one player targeted, but then they protect themselves with an "I Don't Think So!" card, which the attacker counters with their own IDTS, and then a third player (with a vested interest in the attacker's demise) plays another IDTS card to nullify the nullification of the nullification.

The key is that it's all good wacky fun, and drawing the "I Don't Think So!" cards is luck-dependent so you can't abuse it ad nauseam, but outside of a few clutch circumstances it's never the obviously best choice every time. Plus the game is low-stakes which helps the equation -- you're not usually thinking of the mechanical advantage, you just play your IDTS card whenever it'll make the game more fun.

Black Fleet is another game where, conversely, the lack of nullification really got my attention. The game is focused around accumulating unique upgrades, which can help you steal from opponents or gain more resources yourself or just move around the map better. The key is that every single upgrade is offensive. At no point in the game can you gain an upgrade that protects against your opponents' abilities...which means the game only gets more chaotic as it progresses, and by the end everything is going crazy and everyone's getting full use out of all their features. The game design just accepts that the cool things that people invested in will happen, and you're going to get hit. So instead of introducing safeguards or counter-measures that would nullify those attacks and slow the game down, they just ensure that the effects are devastating but not world-ending. You get knocked down, but you can always come back and take revenge on that player in your very next turn.

I really appreciate that approach, where cool things are always allowed to happen, and the game is instead designed around keeping them survivable so you can fight back with your own cool stuff next chance you get. I think this is a much better way of designing a game if the goal of the game is to get cool upgrades and do cool things with them - which is also a big part of D&D.

[DarknessEternal]

I thought this was the common opinion.

[Pex]

Oh lordy. Something where casters aren't the hands down best anymore. The world must be ending and I must hate casters. /Sarcasm.

Yeah no. For one thing... This is PCs. Not monsters. I'm firmly embracing the difference. This is not competitive. PCs aren't facing PCs. Monsters may be able to counter spells sometimes, but much more rarely. PCs get built in license to do cool things. Monsters don't.

For another... Everything has a cost. Every time you counter, you're spending resources that could have gone to other things. Including stuff like rage, other spells, etc.

Spells already have saving throws and attacks rolls. They don't automatically work. Anything that does more than 1d6 + 3 damage or lose a bonus action does not mean a spellcaster is too powerful ruining the game. There are ways to limit magic without making it useless by everyone having the ability to nullify it.

Spellcasters are allowed to cast spells. They are allowed to cast powerful spells. They are allowed to cast powerful spells that work. They are allowed to cast powerful spells that work without regretting doing so due to the spellcaster risking life, sanity, or the player doesn't get to play the game for the next several rounds of play.

Spellcasters should not being doing everything, but that does not mean they must do nothing.

Edited to make it less personal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your hatred of magic biases you. Spells already have saving throws and attacks rolls. They don't automatically work. Anything that does more than 1d6 + 3 damage or lose a bonus action to you means a spellcaster is too powerful ruining the game. There are ways to limit magic without making it useless by everyone having the ability to nullify it.

Spellcasters are allowed to cast spells. They are allowed to cast powerful spells. They are allowed to cast powerful spells that work. They are allowed to cast powerful spells that work without regretting doing so due to the spellcaster risking life, sanity, or the player doesn't get to play the game for the next several rounds of play.

Spellcasters should not being doing everything, but that does not mean they must do nothing.

Yeah...your hatred of anything that nerfs spellcasting or spellcasters even in the slightest blinds you. I don't hate magic. I never have. And this does not nerf PC spellcasters at all.

My proposal does not affect PCs. Full stop. No PC will ever find their spells working differently because of this. It only lets PCs stop monsters from spellcasting. Full stop. All it does is make it so it's not "you must have a bard or wizard with counterspell prepared or you lose the game past level 5."

I firmly believe that there should be no "must haves". Any party composition should be able to do the job. And the balance of the game should not depend on whether
a) you have the right class
b) they decided to prepare that one critical spell
c) they happen to have slots available for it.

That's single-point-of-failure design. It's just as bad as condemning someone to be a healbot. It distorts the game tremendously.

[Kish]

Well now hold on. Let me highlight something here.

PhoenixPhyre said that only PCs get the "X class has Y kind of antimagic aura" thing. It will never negatively affect a PC unless the game breaks down to the point of actual PvP. A PC wizard can still turn an NPC barbarian into an apricot.

(That being the case, I would find it to strain my immersion that evil warlords weren't devoting some effort to capturing this handful of weirdly antimagic people for dissection and study, but that's a separate issue.)

[ZRN]

Counterspell feels overpowered/mandatory because there are so few other options to keep spellcasters from using their most powerful abilities, which are almost all ranged and hard or impossible to block or prevent otherwise. (Contrast with martial characters, where AC is easy to boost and positioning can protect you from a lot of attacks to begin with.)

Probably the best way to make it feel less mandatory would be to alter the base game mechanics so it was easier for everyone (especially non-casters) to interrupt or protect themselves from spells. Then counter spell would be one (very strong) option among many, like Shield is against martial attacks.

[KorvinStarmast]

People say this, but referencing that thread, most delay stems from people simply not knowing how to play or not paying attention. The latter is actually resolved by increasing reactive options, you must pay attention, you can't just zone out and "take the damage"." The trick is to implement the reaction bits smoothly in the game mechanics (class features being a fine example).


Referencing the 30-minute thread, not paying attention is symptomatic of unreactive play. When the player can do nothing in response to an attack or an event within the game, it encourages them to zone out until its their turn. At which point we're met with the ever predictable slowdown of "whats going on again?". While you won't get any argument from me that they should be paying attention regardless of whats going on, the "Someone remind me whats happening?" is a fault of D&Ds own making by not keeping players engaged when they are not the "active player". You have to wait your turn in board games too, though. :smallwink: (But I find your assessment here to have some merit).

Does your GM tell your group what the spell is as it's being cast?

Or do they go "[Enemy] starts casting a spell"? Or even "[Enemy] starts making sounds while moving their hands in a rythmic pattern"? Now that counterspell is available to my players, I open with "{enemy casts a spell}" and I give the Cs player the chance to say counterspell. I don't wait long. (Usually a long three count). If they aren't paying attention, that's on them. We've discussed this, and he's improved his attention-paying massively. (And that's the other key: discuss stuff with your players).

I thought this was the common opinion. Nope. A great many people like counterspell as is. It's just that those who don't seem to want to grind that ax on GitP every so often ... kind of like my having trouble not sounding off when the Artificer class gets mentioned, or the Hexblade.

@ZRN: good point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well now hold on. Let me highlight something here.

PhoenixPhyre said that only PCs get the "X class has Y kind of antimagic aura" thing. It will never negatively affect a PC unless the game breaks down to the point of actual PvP. A PC wizard can still turn an NPC barbarian into an apricot.

(That being the case, I would find it to strain my immersion that evil warlords weren't devoting some effort to capturing this handful of weirdly antimagic people for dissection and study, but that's a separate issue.)

Oh, there will be some NPCs who have similar, but not identical abilities. But that's status quo ante.


And "NPC barbarian" isn't a thing in my system. PC classes are game-level abstractions, not fiction-level. In fact, as I call out up front:



Classes are archetypes for playing the game. They represent a tiny slice of the wild and wonderful variation in the world. While playing NIH System, you may encounter creatures, including other "normal" humanoids who have abilities reminicient of class abilities and those with entirely other abilities that no class offers. Even if they are called "sorcerer" or "rogue" or "oathbound", they may not have all the abilities of a member of that class and may in fact have others unattainable in game. Every individual is different, but the classes represent packages of abilities balanced and suited for play as an adventurer. They are not "real" in the context of the fictional world.


So your PC defender warden with his aura of selective anti-magic may, in fact, be unique. Other people who tap into the primal forces of nature via emotions may have utterly different abilities.

[False God]

The trick is to implement the reaction bits smoothly in the game mechanics (class features being a fine example).

I thought up a few based off the old 3.5 Combat Reflexes, and retooled for each class, but repeating "You can make extra attacks, but only in your special class-specific way." got repetitive. I feel like a single feat to give you +1 reaction(Combat Reflexes) and maybe a level-gated "Improved Combat Reflexes" for another +1 reaction would be simpler to implement without adding overly class specific variants. Each class could then in turn have a special sort of attack that only they can pull off on a reaction.
Barbarian: "Gut Punch", when the enemy hits you with an attack, you may as a reaction make an unarmed attack against them, if successful, they are staggered for their next turn.
Rogue: "Dodge Roll", if an enemy attack would hit you, you may make a reflex save (DC is the attackers roll), if successful, the attack does not land and you may shift 5 feet in any direction to an unoccupied square.
Cleric: "Flashing Light", if an attack from an enemy in melee would miss you, you may attempt to raise your holy symbol to their face and it emits a flashing light (insert spell DC here) if successful, the enemy is blinded for 1d4 rounds.

I dunno, threw 'em together really fast. I like 4E's Wuxia combat, but the current and future editions are clearly not leaning that direction and I think that leans the whole design towards "generic and repeatable" rather than "big and flashy". Which is fine, with the caveat that these things should be fairly reliable abilities with no AEDU-like cooldowns.

[Solusek]

TL;DR - Counterspell is baggage from 3.5 and doesn't belong in 5e.

Counterspell is -much- more powerful in 5e than it was in 3e. It used to require you to spend your turn readying an action to attempt a counterspell on a specific opponent. If that opponent did try to cast something on its next turn you could make a spellcraft check to identify their spell and then you had to have that exact spell prepared or use Dispel Magic (which required another check to succeed with) in order to counter it. Countering a spell took up your whole turn, required you to guess which opponent was a spellcaster and what type of spells they might be casting, and still you had to make checks to succeed. In 5e it simply takes a reaction. I also hate 5e counterspell. It is way too strong now.

[Amechra]

While I'm in favor of Counterspell being a thing, the problem you run into is that, by design, spellcasters in 5e generally only cast a couple major spells per battle outside of big scary boss fights. If my general game-plan was "cast Banishment on the big guy, drop a Fireball on their minions, then help mop up with cantrips", getting one of my two big spells countered cancels almost half of my overall contribution to the fight. Oh no!

That said... I don't think this is bad design, necessarily, and removing Counterspell just unduly powers up a lot of high-level spells. Like, I don't think it'd be bad if, say, someone spent a 5th level spell slot to auto-save vs. Banishment (which is effectively the same thing as countering it). The issue is that all of the alternatives to Counterspell are absolutely terrible and rely on the spell in question requiring Concentration. You want to prevent Lich McQueen from hitting one of your allies with Disintegrate? Sucks to suck if you don't have Counterspell, I guess.

The issue I have with the argument that "I gave my spellcaster villain Spell XYZ because I thought it'd be interesting to deal with, and Counterspell is a boring way of dealing with it" is that I think it's conflating "I get to describe cool special effects" and the spell actually having interesting counterplay. For most spells, the counterplay essentially boils down to something entirely passive (hoping that they miss or that you make your saving throw) or you doing what you were already doing (trying to kill the spellcaster). 5e simply doesn't have the mechanical infrastructure to make playing around nasty debuffs or whatever worth it.

I blame the binary nature of saving throws, honestly — they work well enough as a safety net against a trap you failed to notice and the like, but lead to a lot of swinginess in combat. This conversation would be very different if setting up a creature to pass or fail a save was something you could actively try to arrange (like, I dunno, if creatures needed to be below a certain HP threshold before they failed saves), rather than just rolling the dice and hoping.

[Kane0]

Or if there were only three saves instead of six to choose the most effective from, and warrior types were pretty good at at least two of them. And if they could smack you in the face when you try to cast a spell where they can reach you.

[Kish]

The issue I have with the argument that "I gave my spellcaster villain Spell XYZ because I thought it'd be interesting to deal with, and Counterspell is a boring way of dealing with it" is that I think it's conflating "I get to describe cool special effects" and the spell actually having interesting counterplay.
Indeed. I think the solution is to be more flexible and less "but that wasn't in the script in my head!" Replace the description of how a demon appears with a description of how the lights forming around the villain's hands poof out and the villain gives the party wizard a shocked "I hate you" look, because there isn't much daylight between "but that spell was supposed to work!" and "you rolled maximum damage? But I had at least three rounds more of his actions all mapped out!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Indeed. I think the solution is to be more flexible and less "but that wasn't in the script in my head!" Replace the description of how a demon appears with a description of how the lights forming around the villain's hands poof out and the villain gives the party wizard a shocked "I hate you" look, because there isn't much daylight between "but that spell was supposed to work!" and "you rolled maximum damage? But I had at least three rounds more of his actions all mapped out!"

Yeah. One advantage you have as a DM is you can "precast" that sort of thing. And you're not limited to actual spells.

So for things that are part of a set-piece encounter[1], just have them there already. Or have them as legendary actions/lair actions/etc. Basically anything that's calculated into the encounter difficulty/"expected" to be there should just be there.

If it's more ad hoc encounter, then being flexible is key. I generally get around this by not pre-planning tactics beyond the very high level ones (goals, basically).

[1] not all encounters are set-pieces, but set-pieces aren't bad.

[False God]

Or if there were only three saves instead of six to choose the most effective from, and warrior types were pretty good at at least two of them. And if they could smack you in the face when you try to cast a spell where they can reach you.

I dunno, maybe something like a -4 to casting when in melee? And casting in melee provokes an attack of opportunity?

I SWEAR that was in some other edition before, maybe I'm just crazy....

[KorvinStarmast]

I just finished a session tonight.
Bard tried to counterspell twice.
Both failed. (we are all somewhat surprised)


And casting in melee provokes an attack of opportunity?
In this edition, it's an Opportunity Attack. :smallfurious:

[TaiLiu]

Well, the attempt to simplify things results in stuff like this. The basic design is supposed to keep barriers to entry and complexity low. (There was variable success in doing this, and the spell system gets more complex as one goes up in level, to be sure).
Yeah, maybe... Though I feel like D&D 5e is relatively crunchy and complex compared to many TTRPGs out there. Powered By the Apocalypse systems are less complex than 5e but have a trinary resolution system. Mostly I feel like 5e's central mechanics feel somewhat empty, while its subsystems add on an enormous amount of complexity. Spells especially—each one is a discrete effect you need to learn!


All good points and I agree. I have the same bug stuck in my craw about binary ability checks and the randomness of the d20 as a resolution die. For attack modifiers or, say, Perception checks this isn't an issue because you'll make enough of them across a campaign that the math averages out and your modifier counts. But if you only ever make 4 Animal Handling checks in a campaign, luck can easily erase your Proficiency choice (positive or negative).

I particularly love the part I bolded above. That's my ideal scenario, everyone getting to feel effective while still encountering the villain's threat. "Choreographing" your encounters gets a lot of flak, but a counterspell in the wrong place can turn what was supposed to be a balanced and fun encounter into a boring curb-stomp.
Yeah, absolutely! The fact that the d20 is both flat and wide makes it great for comedy and the unexpected. But compared to smaller dice, and especially groups of dice, it's a poor fit for a more serious game. Of course, the d20 has probably been the most central mechanical aspect of D&D from 3e onward. So it won't ever be dethroned.

Agreed here, too. It's a problem when the most effective thing to do makes the game less cool. It's a difficult problem to solve, admittedly.

[Snails]

Counterspell feels overpowered/mandatory because there are so few other options to keep spellcasters from using their most powerful abilities, which are almost all ranged and hard or impossible to block or prevent otherwise. (Contrast with martial characters, where AC is easy to boost and positioning can protect you from a lot of attacks to begin with.)

Probably the best way to make it feel less mandatory would be to alter the base game mechanics so it was easier for everyone (especially non-casters) to interrupt or protect themselves from spells. Then counter spell would be one (very strong) option among many, like Shield is against martial attacks.

I agree with this line of reasoning. It is okay for Shield and Counterspell and Absorb Elements to be the hands down best of the best. But with so few options for defense, at all, these spells stand out as strange misfits.

As a practical matter, there is so little that can be done to mitigate getting blasted by spells or boost defenses, and martials are tied by the apron strings to spell casters in this department, for the most part. Protection from Poison and Protection from Evil are okay-ish but that is about it. Unless you know exactly what your coming battles are going to look like Protection from Energy is just not worth effort.

What if we allowed a PC to spend their Reaction to get Advantage on one specific saving throw type for the next round?

[Xervous]

What if we allowed a PC to spend their Reaction to get Advantage on one specific saving throw type for the next round?

Simple, desirable, free (resource wise). You don’t always need it, and it’s never an interruption because you’ve already been passed the spotlight to roll the save.

Pressure a PC to force them to choose between save boosting or maybe making another reaction. Hello gameplay depth.

[lall]

I think it goes against the spirit of 5th edition, by being an insanely powerful spell option that's basically mandatory (one of the very few "mandatories") for every spellcaster with access to it.
My most recent bard got Power Word Killed (with 99 hit points, so frustrating). Counterspell wouldn’t have helped as the baddie could have countered my counter (and no one else in the party could have countered his counter.) Always take it as a sorcerer who can cast it subtly. Never as a non-sorcerer as I hate suboptimizing.

[Psyren]

I dunno, maybe something like a -4 to casting when in melee? And casting in melee provokes an attack of opportunity?

I SWEAR that was in some other edition before, maybe I'm just crazy....

I'd be okay with casting ranged spells in melee provoking, but not melee ones. I'd hate to go back to all that "holding the charge" nonsense.

[Tanarii]

The Xanathar's spell-identification mechanic is so clearly a backdoor Counterspell nerf that I don't think anybody uses it unless they're unhappy with Counterspell and also refuse to ban it from their game. It also creates this weird procedural gameplay vs mechanics impedance because for the majority of the game when you take an action you just say what you do. "I cast Fireball." Except Counterspell encourages you to say, "I cast a spell." It's obnoxious, easy to forget, and isn't fun.
It's not a nerf. It's adding something that you couldn't do at all before Xan: Identify a spell as it's being cast. PHB rules, there's no way to do that.

All Counterspelling is supposed to be done blind. Even after Xan, because you can't do both. Anyone not doing that, it's hardly surprising they would find it boring or OP.

[Psyren]

People don't enforce the Xan Reaction counterspell rule because it's pointless. If your DM enforces it, just have someone (or everyone) in the party pick up Arcana besides the Counterspeller, and whoever besides them that IDs the spell can yell out what it is. Sure, your DM can try to enforce only talking on your turn... to which I say, good luck with that at most tables.

[Amnestic]

All Counterspelling is supposed to be done blind.

Is that a rule?

[Anymage]

Is that a rule?

Pure RAW, you just take the "cast a spell" action and then the spell effects are only observable after the spell takes effect. In other words, once it's taken effect and after the opportunity to counter had passed. Given that pre-Xanthar's you didn't have any rules for spell identification whatsoever due to the general lack of defined rules for ability checks, the only way anybody would have anything to go on would be if specific material components were in use and noticed.

In practice, of course, bending yourself into a pretzel to reduce a spell's power by making it annoying to use is bad design all over the place. Every table I've played with just announced what spells were being cast instead of adding unnecessary breaks. If you have to go that far out of your way to make a mechanic less broken, you're better served admitting as much and working on the mechanic directly.

[noob]

Is that a rule?

Not true, however to not counter-spell blind you need an ally with the spellcraft skill to use a readied action to recognize the spell the opponent is casting(there is a rule that allows that), at that point you are spending too many actions and it is no longer advantageous to counterspell.
If the opponent caster do need spell components and lacks a focus, you might be able to guess the spell without using spellcraft(just by seeing the component and evaluating the most likely spells in function) but foes can stop that by just having a focus at all.

[Tanarii]

Is that a rule?
It's a "rule" because there's no mechanism to identify spells as they're being cast. Or even afterwards based on observing effects. Nor is there any hint in the PHB it's possible. You have to use Identify if you want to figure out what someone cast on someone else, assuming it has duration.

[rel]

You can ban counterspell and very little changes.

Here's a thread where I discuss doing so in detail.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?647698-removing-counterspell-and-antimagic-field/page3

[Psyren]

It's a "rule" because there's no mechanism to identify spells as they're being cast. Or even afterwards based on observing effects. Nor is there any hint in the PHB it's possible. You have to use Identify if you want to figure out what someone cast on someone else, assuming it has duration.

In 5e, "no rule" doesn't automatically mean something can't be done though. The baseline rule for every action in 5e is:

1) State what you want your character to do
2) The DM determines whether it's possible
3) If it's possible, the DM determines whether you either succeed automatically or need a roll of some kind, setting an appropriate DC.


Not true, however to not counter-spell blind you need an ally with the spellcraft skill to use a readied action to recognize the spell the opponent is casting(there is a rule that allows that), at that point you are spending too many actions and it is no longer advantageous to counterspell.

If two reactions from your team prevents an enemy caster from locking down your entire party's actions/ bonus actions/reactions with an Incapacitate effect or worse, I'd consider that a worthwhile trade. Again though, you only need this if your DM enforces separate reactions to identify and counter, and I think few do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If two reactions from your team prevents an enemy caster from locking down your entire party's actions/ bonus actions/reactions with an Incapacitate effect or worse, I'd consider that a worthwhile trade. Again though, you only need this if your DM enforces separate reactions to identify and counter, and I think few do.

I'd say that the whole "reaction to identify the spell and call it out" is dubious on several fronts.

1. By the time you identify it, the spell is (logically and narratively) already done. The trigger for counterspell is when the spell is cast, not when someone calls out the identity of the spell. So you can't do it at all (by this reading).
2. You can only talk as a free action on your turn. If you're taking a reaction to do it on the caster's turn...it's not your turn. So you can either identify the spell or call it out. Not both. Not by the rules.

Of course DMs can rule otherwise. But assuming this works without confirming it first is probably a bad idea.

[Brookshw]

So you can either identify the spell or call it out. Not both. Not by the rules.


Concur, and that's how I treat it at the table; granted the strict interpretation makes spell identification ultimately a useless endeavor except perhaps to have an idea how long an effect might last or what it did if the effects aren't obvious. Completely understandable if people prefer different approaches at their tables.

Incidentally to players communicating results above the table, I generally work on the honor system, however, if it became an issue I'd have everyone decide their reactions, or lack thereof, before doling out results, or hold the identification results until the player who knew could actually do something with the information (i.e., their turn).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Concur, and that's how I treat it at the table; granted the strict interpretation makes spell identification ultimately a useless endeavor except perhaps to have an idea how long an effect might last or what it did if the effects aren't obvious. Completely understandable if people prefer different approaches at their tables.

Incidentally to players communicating results above the table, I generally work on the honor system, however, if it became an issue I'd have everyone decide their reactions, or lack thereof, before doling out results, or hold the identification results until the player who knew could actually do something with the information (i.e., their turn).

I don't strongly enforce things. And my players don't push. They counterspell blind, and it's been very useful (understatement of the day, at least).

I'm fine with DMs saying what's being cast. NBD. I'm fine with them not saying it. I'm less fine with people trying to insist that their weasel-worded shortcuts around fairly clear defaults must be allowed to work or are the actual rules.

[Psyren]

I'd say that the whole "reaction to identify the spell and call it out" is dubious on several fronts.

1. By the time you identify it, the spell is (logically and narratively) already done. The trigger for counterspell is when the spell is cast, not when someone calls out the identity of the spell. So you can't do it at all (by this reading).
2. You can only talk as a free action on your turn. If you're taking a reaction to do it on the caster's turn...it's not your turn. So you can either identify the spell or call it out. Not both. Not by the rules.

Of course DMs can rule otherwise. But assuming this works without confirming it first is probably a bad idea.

I have no doubt there exist DMs that strictly enforce only speaking on your turn. Maybe I'll even play with one of them one day.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have no doubt there exist DMs that strictly enforce only speaking on your turn. Maybe I'll even play with one of them one day.

Sure. But you should accept that the default is that you can only talk as a free action on your turn. That's an explicit rule. Trying to say that you can do the "identify and shout it out" thing as a matter of rule (rather than a matter of DM deciding to change the rules) is dubious, at best.

And that's my point. People on these forums tend to take their highly suspect rules as if they were the actual rules. And it's important to differentiate between those two things.

[Psyren]

Sure. But you should accept that the default is that you can only talk as a free action on your turn. That's an explicit rule. Trying to say that you can do the "identify and shout it out" thing as a matter of rule (rather than a matter of DM deciding to change the rules) is dubious, at best.

And that's my point. People on these forums tend to take their highly suspect rules as if they were the actual rules. And it's important to differentiate between those two things.

The rules should conform to the way people intuitively play, not the other way around. So no, I will not be accepting any such thing, not without continuing to advocate for better. Being able to bait out any counterspeller including Vecna himself with a cantrip renders the ability farcical.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The rules should conform to the way people intuitively play, not the other way around. So no, I will not be accepting any such thing, not without continuing to advocate for better. Being able to bait out any counterspeller including Vecna himself with a cantrip renders the ability farcical.

Great. Homebrew whatever you want. That's how you conform the rules to how you play. But flag it as homebrew, because that's how it is.

Because "the way people intuitively play" isn't a single-valued function. How my tables play and how yours play is different. So the base default rules can't conform to both. The rules should define how people intuitively play.

My tables have all intuitively assumed (since day 1, actually, both as a player and DM) that you're counterspelling blind. Or that the DM calls out the name of the spell. The idea that you can juke the Xanathar's rules like that is horribly anti-intuitive to me, at least.

[Psyren]

"the way people intuitively play" isn't a single-valued function.

Sure, but the way most people play is. If you enforce no off-turn talking, more power to you.

[Quietus]

I do like the idea that was floated previously, about allowing readied attacks to trigger concentration checks to successfully complete casting the spell, and then making Mage Slayer turn that into an opportunity attack with disadvantage on the save. Martials are still at a disadvantage in that they need to get close enough for that to matter, but at least now they can rock-paper-wizard their way through.

Also an option - make Counterspell, instead of fully negating the offending spell, weak it somehow. Attack rolls made as part of the spell have disadvantage, or saves against it have advantage. I'd keep the "meet the spell level" aspect, possibly drop it to first level with no option to make a check to affect higher level spells, and now a wizard can disrupt but not break opposing spellcaster's actions. Alternatively, Counterspell -> opponent makes a (spellcasting ability check? arcana/religion/nature check?) to keep the spell, and if they succeed on that check, then it still gives the above mentioned weakening effects. This way Ccounterspell always matters, even if you don't negate the action you still get some benefit. But again, consider removing the option to make a check to hit a higher spell level, so if you want to tag a 9th level spell, you better have a slot for that yourself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, but the way most people play is. If you enforce no off-turn talking, more power to you.

And is 100% irrelevant. The rules cannot take polls. And you, yourself, haven't taken a poll. My statement is one of the printed rules. They very clearly, black-letter text, say that you can only talk on your turn. Your position is a change to those rules. Therefore, your position is homebrew. By the literal definition of those words.

That's not bad, but asserting homebrew as player entitlement is bad. It causes conflict at tables that disagree. Being clear about what you want and that what you want isn't covered by the actual rules allows people to work together to come up with a suitable solution for your particular case.

[Psyren]

The rules cannot take polls.

The designers who make them can.



That's not bad, but asserting homebrew as player entitlement is bad. It causes conflict at tables that disagree.

Why is the desire to avoid conflict at all costs a good thing? Conflict leads to evolution. Conflict provokes meaningful change. The very title of this thread is inviting conflict, as well as begging the question of ways people would make the rules better.



Also an option - make Counterspell, instead of fully negating the offending spell, weak it somehow. Attack rolls made as part of the spell have disadvantage, or saves against it have advantage.

I don't mind this idea, either as an alternative form of counterspell or a lesser effect that occurs if you try to counterspell someone more powerful than you. Maybe instead of flat advantage/disadvantage it becomes a bonus to saves/penalty to hit on that casting, or a penalty to the concentration check.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The designers who make them can.


But once they've written the rules, changes to how people play can't be considered without changing the rules and writing different ones. The rules they actually wrote do not agree with you. And you're claiming without any evidence that your way is the majority way. Something that doesn't actually matter, because the written rules are static until the table decides to change them.



Why is the desire to avoid conflict at all costs a good thing? Conflict leads to evolution. Conflict provokes meaningful change. The very title of this thread is inviting conflict, as well as begging the question of ways people would make the rules better.


Conflict does none of those things inherently. Evolution isn't some directed process. Conflict most often prevents meaningful change because it locks in defensive lines. Cooperation, open and unheated communication, reasoned discussion, and willingness to compromise allows for meaningful change toward better things.

Conflict at the table causes broken tables. Players making assumptions and then not checking them (or the DM doing the same) increases the chances of not-fun. To know how to sensibly change rules, you first have to know what those rules are.

[DarknessEternal]

Sure, but the way most people play is. If you enforce no off-turn talking, more power to you.

What "most people"? In 42 years, I've never played D&D with anyone who thought you could talk when it wasn't your turn.

[Psyren]

What "most people"? In 42 years, I've never played D&D with anyone who thought you could talk when it wasn't your turn.

You've been playing 5e for 42 years? That's honestly impressive.


But once they've written the rules, changes to how people play can't be considered without changing the rules and writing different ones. The rules they actually wrote do not agree with you. And you're claiming without any evidence that your way is the majority way. Something that doesn't actually matter, because the written rules are static until the table decides to change them.

This isn't a RAW thread, it's a thread about what isn't working and how the game should be.


Conflict does none of those things inherently. Evolution isn't some directed process. Conflict most often prevents meaningful change because it locks in defensive lines. Cooperation, open and unheated communication, reasoned discussion, and willingness to compromise allows for meaningful change toward better things.

Conflict at the table causes broken tables. Players making assumptions and then not checking them (or the DM doing the same) increases the chances of not-fun. To know how to sensibly change rules, you first have to know what those rules are.

Ironically, you're the one who isn't compromising though. "All counterspells must be made blind, no ifs ands or buts" is not any kind of compromise, it's your-way-or-the-highway.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't strongly enforce things. And my players don't push. They counterspell blind, and it's been very useful (understatement of the day, at least). It works fine. (A player at Phoenix's table).
I'm less fine with people trying to insist that their weasel-worded shortcuts around fairly clear defaults must be allowed to work or are the actual rules.

People on these forums tend to take their highly suspect rules as if they were the actual rules. And it's important to differentiate between those two things. And then there's the various puzzles on vision and lighting that the rules authors didn't help us with, to be sure ... :smallyuk:

Sure, but the way most people play is. If you enforce no off-turn talking, more power to you. It's rude to interrupt the other person's turn. Wait your turn. We all learned that playing board games. (I also think that PP's point has to do with IC talking, not the casual banter that erupts during play that is as often OOC as IC). I have, as a player had to tell another player "Hey, let Fred take his turn!" because they were starting to get on my nerves with speaking up during other person's turns., and they are a pushy personality while the player whose turn it is tends to be more reserved.
Seen it happen to many times.

Some of the table talk, though, which I think you may be alluding to, is a byproduct of how a given group of people find their comfort zone with each other.
Very table dependent.

What "most people"? In 42 years, I've never played D&D with anyone who thought you could talk when it wasn't your turn. I see we have another person who tends to see it as I do.

You've been playing 5e for 42 years? That's honestly impressive. Well, I could claim claim 48 years if I hadn't started taking a ten year (or so) break in the early 00's. :smallyuk: Started in '75.
(Back then we didn't have counterspell, but we had much better saves as we went up in level, if we survived to level up while walking uphill to school in a blizzard in the middle of the desert nine days a week ...)

[Amnestic]

It's rude to interrupt the other person's turn. Wait your turn.

Glad we agree on deleting counterspell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ironically, you're the one who isn't compromising though. "All counterspells must be made blind, no ifs ands or buts" is not any kind of compromise, it's your-way-or-the-highway.

No. I've never said that. In fact, I've said the opposite. I'm totally fine with DMs calling out the names of the spells (aka automatic identification). That doesn't bother me at all. I'm actually fine if DMs and tables decide that you can play the (to me) silly "identify and then shout it out" game. As long as they've affirmatively and explicitly done so. I'm 1000000000% ok with homebrew. In fact, I prefer when tables decide to change the rules to better fit them.

What I'm not fine with is people deciding that this thing that breaks the explicit rules is actually the real rule because they want it to be so. Because that's a lie. And causes at-table conflict when table members show up with different expectations.

Explicit changes are good. But that requires accepting that the rules are not how you want them to be and then getting buy in from everyone else to change them. Trying to smuggle in a rule change by sophistry or brazen lies is not fine.

[Psyren]

Glad we agree on deleting counterspell.

I lol'd :smallbiggrin:



Well, I could claim claim 48 years if I hadn't started taking a ten year (or so) break in the early 00's. :smallyuk: Started in '75.

My point there was that prior editions did specifically allow out-of-turn speech, so anyone playing for >10 years would have known that:



Free Action: Free actions take almost no time or effort. You can take as many free actions as you want during your or another combatant’s turn. The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn. Examples: speaking a few sentences, dropping a held item, letting go of a grabbed enemy.


In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.


Make Spellcraft check on counterspell attempt
[Free][AoO: No]
...
Speak
[Free][AoO: No]

5e is the first one in a long time to be silent on the issue (not even an explicit prohibition, merely silent.)



What I'm not fine with is people deciding that this thing that breaks the explicit rules is actually the real rule because they want it to be so.

I never said speaking during the identification reaction was RAW, just that people should rule it that way. Though I'd wonder how you plan to provide the verbal component of a reaction spell if you can't speak off-turn.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

If I didn't already mention it in this thread, some of my favorite D&D moments have been from Counterspell. Plus it keeps you paying attention in combat when it is not your turn and can be a boon for martial characters.

Moment 1: My character Counterspelles our own Wizard out of using Fireball during a bar fight. This allowed us to talk our way out of things.

Moment 2: Same character shut down a teleport spell a bad guy was using to escape and if I recall kidnap a downed pc.

Sure it can be a bummer if the DM Counterspells you. Continually it would get boring but every so often is part of the game.

Also, there are only so many reactions in the game and combat can be a bit slow.

Also, remember the complaints about DMs nerfing the party's spell casters? Well if anyone who wants to make martials stronger or level the field give one a sword of Counterspell. Heck, limit the thing by having it maybe explode if it "eats" more than 10 levels worth of spells in a game.

[Brookshw]

Glad we agree on deleting counterspell.

Wouldn't take much to convince me they should get rid of reactions entirely.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I never said speaking during the identification reaction was RAW, just that people should rule it that way. Though I'd wonder how you plan to provide the verbal component of a reaction spell if you can't speak off-turn.

All I asked was that you accept that it is a change from the actual rule text, which does forbid it. And you affirmatively refused to do so. So which is it?

I didn't say you can't speak off-turn. I said you can't speak as part of another action (aka a free action). See rules quote below. And since identifying a spell as a reaction doesn't include speaking, the rules do affirmatively not allow you to call out the information as part of it.



Other Activity on Your Turn
Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.

You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.


This explicitly forbids communication outside of your turn (unless authorized by some more specific rule, which the reaction to identify a spell does not do). Thus, the rules directly forbid communication outside of your turn.

[Amnestic]

Wouldn't take much to convince me they should get rid of reactions entirely.

I do think the loss of opportunity attacks would change the face of tactical positioning somewhat, removing those would change a few things about how the game is played, and some alternative might be needed (your threatened area turning into 'difficult terrain' might work? idk, literally just off the top of my head).

Removing reaction spells though in my eyes is either "not needed, but not against it so I'd be fine if it happened" (temporal shunt, feather fall, absorb elements, hellish rebuke, soul cage) or "I'm actively in favour" (shield, counterspell).

Though I am somewhat of a hypocrite here; a few of my homebrew spells are reaction-based.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do think the loss of opportunity attacks would change the face of tactical positioning somewhat, removing those would change a few things about how the game is played, and some alternative might be needed (your threatened area turning into 'difficult terrain' might work? idk, literally just off the top of my head).

Removing reaction spells though in my eyes is either "not needed, but not against it so I'd be fine if it happened" (temporal shunt, feather fall, absorb elements, hellish rebuke, soul cage) or "I'm actively in favour" (shield, counterspell).

Though I am somewhat of a hypocrite here; a few of my homebrew spells are reaction-based.

I'd say that feather fall and absorb elements really do need to be reaction-timing to be useful. So it's either remove them entirely or keep them as reactions. And those two are fine the way they are.

[Amnestic]

I would be fine with Absorb Elements being a bonus action setup in anticipation of future damage, or removed entirely. If you're anticipating a dragon's breath, it's worth the setup. Sometimes. Maybe.
I'm also not against feather fall being a precast spell, again or removed entirely (or relegated to magic items in the form of feather fall tokens).

Hell, I wouldn't even mind Shield being a bonus action spell honestly. Means casters can't unleash their big nukes in the same turn as casting Shield, treats it closer to a Dodge effect, similar to Patient Defense on monks (though a caster could stack BA Shield+Dodge, for absolute tank mode, I suppose).

Also I forgot to list Silvery Barbs in my "spells that can get in the bin" list. It can also get in the bin.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would be fine with Absorb Elements being a bonus action setup in anticipation of future damage, or removed entirely. If you're anticipating a dragon's breath, it's worth the setup. Sometimes. Maybe.
I'm also not against feather fall being a precast spell, again or removed entirely (or relegated to magic items in the form of feather fall tokens).

Hell, I wouldn't even mind Shield being a bonus action spell honestly. Means casters can't unleash their big nukes in the same turn as casting Shield, treats it closer to a Dodge effect, similar to Patient Defense on monks (though a caster could stack BA Shield+Dodge, for absolute tank mode, I suppose).

Also I forgot to list Silvery Barbs in my "spells that can get in the bin" list. It can also get in the bin.

Precast feather fall means it just doesn't work in most cases. Removed entirely...meh.

Shield? Yeah, I'm completely changing that one. And silvery barbs is on my "pretend it doesn't exist and maybe it will go away" list. I never bought the book and steadfastly refuse to allow content from books I don't own.

[Brookshw]

I do think the loss of opportunity attacks would change the face of tactical positioning somewhat, removing those would change a few things about how the game is played, and some alternative might be needed (your threatened area turning into 'difficult terrain' might work? idk, literally just off the top of my head).

Removing reaction spells though in my eyes is either "not needed, but not against it so I'd be fine if it happened" (temporal shunt, feather fall, absorb elements, hellish rebuke, soul cage) or "I'm actively in favour" (shield, counterspell).

Though I am somewhat of a hypocrite here; a few of my homebrew spells are reaction-based.

Fair point on AOOs, though I think you could just bake that into the mechanics without needing to define an action mechanic for it (i.e, you get one, feat for bonus uses maybe). Or say you can't leave someone's threatened area without an action, full stop. I'm off the cuff on this one.

[Psyren]

Wouldn't take much to convince me they should get rid of reactions entirely.

Why? They're fun.


All I asked was that you accept that it is a change from the actual rule text, which does forbid it.

It doesn't. The rules are in fact silent on speaking out of your turn. And given that you can regularly provide verbal components outside of your turn, that leaves an open question the next ruleset should resolve.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It doesn't. The rules are in fact silent on speaking out of your turn. And given that you can regularly provide verbal components outside of your turn, that leaves an open question the next ruleset should resolve.

The rules are silent on fighters casting meteor swarm at will at level 1 or moving wherever you want off your turn. In an exception-based game, rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do. So "the rules don't say I can't" is an utterly specious form of reasoning. The rules cannot define all the things you cannot do. That's literally impossible.

In fact, the explicit inclusion in one area (on your turn) does naturally imply that you cannot do it otherwise.

[Psyren]

In fact, the explicit inclusion in one area (on your turn) does naturally imply that you cannot do it otherwise.

And the explicit inclusion in another area (verbal components on reaction spells, which require speech) do naturally imply otherwise. So again, they need to spell* this out.

*heh

[PhoenixPhyre]

And the explicit inclusion in another area (verbal components on reaction spells, which require speech) do naturally imply otherwise. So again, they need to spell* this out.

*heh

No. The rules don't say you can't talk off turn, they say you can't communicate off turn. Those two are different. Verbal components are not communication. So there's no conflict here whatsoever.

Words matter. Words mean things.

[Psyren]

No. The rules don't say you can't talk off turn, they say you can't communicate off turn. Those two are different. Verbal components are not communication. So there's no conflict here whatsoever.

Words matter. Words mean things.

Great point! So you can only communicate on your turn, but you can talk anytime. I'll just talk out loud to no one in particular then. Thanks!

[Brookshw]

Why? They're fun.


I think the implementation would have been better if they were more broadly available, if you're going to have an interplay system for actions I'd rather see it reasonably consistently applied across all classes and at least a significant number of interactions/mechanics. In the current form it creates more of a 'have/have not' situation which further drives forward the split between martials and casters as spells have a lot more reaction types available (at least, that's my impression) and for which its reasonably clear which are the better ones. I'm also not a fan of the disruption to the action economy that can result from them. Finally, in this system, I'd rather see the 'benefits' of your action result from the things you do on your turn rather than if you have the best particular pick in your pocket.

If they did broadly implement an interplay system for resolving actions, that would be fine. I think WFRP does a great job of this with contested roles being the norm rather than the exception, and the results of those roles having substantial effects on the outcome. Until they actually do some thing that's broad I can live without the piecemeal implementation, kinda like how changing the action economy in 3.5 with the introduction of swift actions, or celerity (especially when you could make yourself immune to the drawbacks) didn't really help things but instead created sort of a disjointed system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Great point! So you can only communicate on your turn, but you can talk anytime. I'll just talk out loud to no one in particular then. Thanks!

And that's the exact sophistry I'm decrying. That kind of logic chopping is exactly what causes problems at the table--people trying to weasel-word the rules instead of honestly saying "ok, this isn't covered by the rules but I think it would make for more fun. Can we change the rules to allow it?" The latter is the mature, respectful way to handle issues. The former is decidedly not.

This attitude toward the table is exactly why we can't have nice things. When all rules have to be written in convoluted ways to protect against people playing silly word games to gain power (aka munchkinry)...which never works because sophistry knows no bounds.

[Telok]

Words matter. Words mean things.
Welcome to natural language.

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.

Where the phrase "lick my lollypop" can be treated with squeals of delight or a harassment lawsuit.

[Psyren]

And that's the exact sophistry I'm decrying. That kind of logic chopping is exactly what causes problems at the table--people trying to weasel-word the rules instead of honestly saying "ok, this isn't covered by the rules but I think it would make for more fun. Can we change the rules to allow it?" The latter is the mature, respectful way to handle issues. The former is decidedly not.

This attitude toward the table is exactly why we can't have nice things. When all rules have to be written in convoluted ways to protect against people playing silly word games to gain power (aka munchkinry)...which never works because sophistry knows no bounds.

You drew the distinction, not me.

In any event, my real recommendation is that the optional rule in Xanathar's is ignored in favor of improvised/actionless identification.


I think the implementation would have been better if they were more broadly available, if you're going to have an interplay system for actions I'd rather see it reasonably consistently applied across all classes and at least a significant number of interactions/mechanics. In the current form it creates more of a 'have/have not' situation which further drives forward the split between martials and casters as spells have a lot more reaction types available (at least, that's my impression) and for which its reasonably clear which are the better ones. I'm also not a fan of the disruption to the action economy that can result from them. Finally, in this system, I'd rather see the 'benefits' of your action result from the things you do on your turn rather than if you have the best particular pick in your pocket.

If they did broadly implement an interplay system for resolving actions, that would be fine. I think WFRP does a great job of this with contested roles being the norm rather than the exception, and the results of those roles having substantial effects on the outcome. Until they actually do some thing that's broad I can live without the piecemeal implementation, kinda like how changing the action economy in 3.5 with the introduction of swift actions, or celerity (especially when you could make yourself immune to the drawbacks) didn't really help things but instead created sort of a disjointed system.

Magic may have more variety of reactions, but I'm willing to bet the most common one to show up at most tables is the Opportunity Attack.

I definitely don't want an interplay system, that sounds like a quick route to introducing a MTG-style "stack" to clutter up 5e and bog down its combat. If multiple Reactions can trigger from a single stimulus, the GM should be the one to ultimately adjudicate that.

[Brookshw]

Magic may have more variety of reactions, but I'm willing to bet the most common one to show up at most tables is the Opportunity Attack. I can't speak to other tables, but for mine the opposite has been true with more caster reactions than AOOs.


I definitely don't want an interplay system, that sounds like a quick route to introducing a MTG-style "stack" to clutter up 5e and bog down its combat. If multiple Reactions can trigger from a single stimulus, the GM should be the one to ultimately adjudicate that. I've played MTG maybe twice in the last 25+ years so not sure I understand the reference, but if I'm understanding you correctly, agreed, chained reactions triggering off each other would be annoying, there has to be some kind of sensible limit to such systems. Otoh, we already have that occurring to a certain extent (e.g., 'oh, player A's counterspelled, that triggered the enemy's counterspell, player B then counterspells that counterspell. Oh, that one failed so player C will throw an additional counterspell'; I've never seen that type of chain reactions from an AOO). Spitballing a bit, but something along the lines of only the target of an attack/ability/spell/whatever getting a reaction might be a good start.

[Sulicius]

Having a whole metagame centered on one rarely used spell is such a waste of effort for me.

I understand that it is a fun and powerful spell for players, but once a player picks it, the DM has to deal with it every fight they try to use a spellcaster.

Add to it that people have different interpretations of how it should be resolved, and that it is a reaction, and now it starts to bog down the middle of combat. Not fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

Glad we agree on deleting counterspell. Nope. A Reaction is a by the rules mechanic that is acceptable as a turn interrupt. Suggest you check out Chapter 9 on the things you can do in combat.

Wouldn't take much to convince me they should get rid of reactions entirely. Massively disagree. Reactions provide more options for unique skills that fit inside the themes and fiction. Good examples include: feather fall, shield (yes, I know the kvetching about it being too strong), protection fighting style, opportunity attack, and so on. And it's a resource: you get one, not multiple. (Which is a place where the tunnel fighter UA was too buggy to implement).

@Psyren: I don't disagree with the two editions where talking is a free action, TBH.
I can chew gum and walk at the same time, and I learned how to fly instruments in helicopters (and teach it) - which is kind of like chewing gum, walking, bouncing a basketball, and twerking at the same time while you hold back a belch.
The idea that the party is using words during their turn to alert or warn one another makes thematic sense (in terms of verisimilitude).

The problem arises when that isn't what is being done. Seen it too many times. You can say that there is 'good table talk' and 'bad table talk' and that is worth its own thread.

[False God]

I can't speak to other tables, but for mine the opposite has been true with more caster reactions than AOOs.

I've played MTG maybe twice in the last 25+ years so not sure I understand the reference, but if I'm understanding you correctly, agreed, chained reactions triggering off each other would be annoying, there has to be some kind of sensible limit to such systems. Otoh, we already have that occurring to a certain extent (e.g., 'oh, player A's counterspelled, that triggered the enemy's counterspell, player B then counterspells that counterspell. Oh, that one failed so player C will throw an additional counterspell'; I've never seen that type of chain reactions from an AOO). Spitballing a bit, but something along the lines of only the target of an attack/ability/spell/whatever getting a reaction might be a good start.

As a current MTG player, unless you're playing with a bunch of casters, who all have counterspell ready, and an available reaction to use it, it's just not going to happen. At best you'll get:
A: Casts Spell
B: Counterspell
C: Counterspell the Counterspell.
A's spell resolves.

Since players aren't sitting on a large hand of cards, and don't have infinite opportunities to respond, creating ridiculous stacks of counters and responses just isn't going to happen. Maybe it's something that could happen in 3.5 days where people had Combat Reflexes to give them +5 reactions and you could break a Wizard six ways from sunday, but it's just not going to be possible short of an entire party of casters and several enemy casters, which is just unlikely.

[Brookshw]

As a current MTG player, unless you're playing with a bunch of casters, who all have counterspell ready, and an available reaction to use it, it's just not going to happen. At best you'll get:
A: Casts Spell
B: Counterspell
C: Counterspell the Counterspell.
A's spell resolves.

Since players aren't sitting on a large hand of cards, and don't have infinite opportunities to respond, creating ridiculous stacks of counters and responses just isn't going to happen. Maybe it's something that could happen in 3.5 days where people had Combat Reflexes to give them +5 reactions and you could break a Wizard six ways from sunday, but it's just not going to be possible short of an entire party of casters and several enemy casters, which is just unlikely.

That's fine, I'm not opposed to the idea of reactions, but if you're going to have them then I think everyone should have at least one card, most classes don't, or they only have them in limited situations. Even if it was just adding a default mechanic where you could change attacks to contested rolls by using your reaction, rather than against static DCs, would make me more satisfied (preferably with martials getting some kind of bump in that area). If anyone's going to get cards to thrown, just give everyone at least one card. No objection to people who feel otherwise, I'd be shocked if everyone wanted the exact same game.

[False God]

That's fine, I'm not opposed to the idea of reactions, but if you're going to have them then I think everyone should have at least one card, most classes don't, or they only have them in limited situations. Even if it was just adding a default mechanic where you could change attacks to contested rolls by using your reaction, rather than against static DCs, would make me more satisfied (preferably with martials getting some kind of bump in that area). If anyone's going to get cards to thrown, just give everyone at least one card. No objection to people who feel otherwise, I'd be shocked if everyone wanted the exact same game.

Oh I agree, I was just earlier stumped on how to make each class having some kind of spell interrupt ability feel unique.

[Psyren]

Having a whole metagame centered on one rarely used spell is such a waste of effort for me.

I understand that it is a fun and powerful spell for players, but once a player picks it, the DM has to deal with it every fight they try to use a spellcaster.

Add to it that people have different interpretations of how it should be resolved, and that it is a reaction, and now it starts to bog down the middle of combat. Not fun.

"Dealing with counterspell" is not some first order geometric problem. Just have the enemy caster stand more than 60ft away when they cast - problem solved! Most targeted ranged spells outrange it, and there are plenty of other spells that don't need to be cast in range either like self buffs, party buffs, summons etc.



@Psyren: I don't disagree with the two editions where talking is a free action, TBH.
I can chew gum and walk at the same time, and I learned how to fly instruments in helicopters (and teach it) - which is kind of like chewing gum, walking, bouncing a basketball, and twerking at the same time while you hold back a belch.
The idea that the party is using words during their turn to alert or warn one another makes thematic sense (in terms of verisimilitude).

The problem arises when that isn't what is being done. Seen it too many times. You can say that there is 'good table talk' and 'bad table talk' and that is worth its own thread.

I know, Wheaton's Law - but look at things like Critical Role and Dimension20, they talk during each others' turns all the time including in character. How many people came to the game watching stuff like that? My thesis again is that the rules should conform to player norms where those norms are not disruptive to people's play experience.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know, Wheaton's Law - but look at things like Critical Role and Dimension20, they talk during each others' turns all the time including in character. How many people came to the game watching stuff like that? My thesis again is that the rules should conform to player norm Using Critical Role as a good example is a bad idea. They are all fine actors, etc, but their pace of play is abysmal.

[Psyren]

Using Critical Role as a good example is a bad idea. They are all fine actors, etc, but their pace of play is abysmal.

It's a great example because they're having fun. Not only that, but they're demonstrably showing newcomers why D&D itself is fun. Screw pace.

[Brookshw]

Oh I agree, I was just earlier stumped on how to make each class having some kind of spell interrupt ability feel unique.

Just for clarity, Counterspell is sort of the topic of the day, but ultimately I'd prefer that if there is going to be a reaction system that it apply far broader than little niche situations. As to Counterspell itself, I'd just give all martials a reaction to disrupt casters when they're in range by making a melee weapon attack roll vs. concentration check, done and done (yes this excludes ranged combatants), but there are a lot of reasonable ways to skin that cat.

[Tanarii]

As the person who pointed out that Counterspelling is blind by PHB rules and you can't identify and counterspell even with Xan rules due to sharing your one reaction , I totally agree that talking is restricted o your turn RAW.

But I should probably also point out that I basically never enforced it. Because I blurted out spell names being cast all the time without thinking. :smallamused: It only wasn't a problem at my table because I didn't use solo BBEG casters. Almost all my battles were many enemies (preferably in 7-12 range), if there was a 'Boss' it wasn't a spellcaster although it might have been supported by them, and it was Tiers 1 and 2. So Pc casters didn't have Lvl 3 slots to spare until just before retirement at level 11, and at best they were dealing with a supporting caster.

If I was running a follow-the-single-party "campaign" / adventure-arcs, which definitely need to be able to handle solo BbEG casters (or 1/2 of 2 enemies), I'd probably just remove the spell from the game if it was a real problem. Depends how it compared to negating melee BBEGs by kiting in that kind of campaign.


Using Critical Role as a good example is a bad idea. They are all fine actors, etc, but their pace of play is abysmal.
Yeah, generally speaking Critical Role is best used as an example of how not to do things.

[Psyren]

As the person who pointed out that Counterspelling is blind by PHB rules and you can't identify and counterspell even with Xan rules due to sharing your one reaction , I totally agree that talking is restricted o your turn RAW.

By PHB rules it is possible, for anything that isn't specified you ask your DM if you can do it and they let you know what to roll if they agree.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As the person who pointed out that Counterspelling is blind by PHB rules and you can't identify and counterspell even with Xan rules due to sharing your one reaction , I totally agree that talking is restricted o your turn RAW.

But I should probably also point out that I basically never enforced it. Because I blurted out spell names being cast all the time without thinking.


And as one who agrees with you...I agree on both parts. Talking out of turn is sometimes enforced, but not for counterspell, since they counterspell blind (by mutual agreement). Banter? Probably fine. They can trade barbs on or off turn as long as it's not disruptive. People can react vocally to getting hit (or missed, or whatever). But actionable communication is on-turn only, generally. So if you try to intimidate someone during combat, you'll know how they respond on their turn for anything other than "he roars in anger" or something like that.



Yeah, generally speaking Critical Role is best used as an example of how not to do things.

Agreed.

As to pacing...one of the things I dislike about the campaign where I'm a player (not enough to leave, but...) is the ultra slow pacing. Partly due to other players dragging things out with side chatter OOC and IC and part with the DM not keeping the pace going. Part of that is my own lack of attention span, to be sure. Great worldbuilding and characterization, but both the macro plot and the scene-level pacing is...slow.


By PHB rules it is possible, for anything that isn't specified you ask your DM if you can do it and they let you know what to roll if they agree.

That applies to anything. Literally. You want to cast meteor swarm at will at level 1? Ask your DM if you can do it. So it rather proves nothing.

[KorvinStarmast]

But actionable communication is on-turn only, generally. I wish I'd said it like that.

As to pacing...one of the things I dislike about the campaign where I'm a player (not enough to leave, but...) is the ultra slow pacing. Partly due to other players dragging things out with side chatter OOC and IC and part with the DM not keeping the pace going. Part of that is my own lack of attention span, to be sure. Great worldbuilding and characterization, but both the macro plot and the scene-level pacing is...slow. I left a game last year over that very thing, as shared elsewhere (a different thread I think).

[Telok]

Just for clarity, Counterspell is sort of the topic of the day, but ultimately I'd prefer that if there is going to be a reaction system that it apply far broader than little niche situations..

5e actually has a little issue with reaction actions and bonus actions. The characters don't truely have any (well beyond opportunity attacks that don't scale except for rogues). What they get are class/race/feat based access to specific abilities that are categorized as "reaction actions" or "bonus actions".

The inability to do anything as a bonus action or reaction without explicit rules text telling you exactly when and precisely what you're allowed to to is supremely limiting. And it negatively impacts the non-casters by forcing all possible actions into an extremely limited zero-sum option set of class & feat abilities... well I suppose there are magic items too, but people keep screaming about golf bage and christmas trees while sitting at a table with five electronic gizmos plus a phone that has 200+ apps on it.

Imagine if instead of being written "you have a bonus action each round that you can use if and only if you have an ability that says you can use your bonus action" it read "you have a bonus action you can use to do things like X, Y, Z, or other similar quick actions as determined by the DM". Of course then you'd need some decent advice for DMs and players about how to deal with stuff, and the track record there isn't exactly stellar.

[Amnestic]

It's a "rule" because there's no mechanism to identify spells as they're being cast.

Why would you need to if everyone knows the spell that's being cast?

[Psyren]

That applies to anything. Literally. You want to cast meteor swarm at will at level 1? Ask your DM if you can do it. So it rather proves nothing.

There is a rule in the PHB for casting meteor swarm. There is no rule in the PHB for identifying a spell. There is an optional rule in Xanathar's for identifying a spell.

[Brookshw]

Imagine if instead of being written "you have a bonus action each round that you can use if and only if you have an ability that says you can use your bonus action" it read "you have a bonus action you can use to do things like X, Y, Z, or other similar quick actions as determined by the DM". Of course then you'd need some decent advice for DMs and players about how to deal with stuff, and the track record there isn't exactly stellar.

A defined list of generally available bonus and reaction actions with others permitted subject to the DM? Sure, I think that would be moving in a good direction. I agree guidance would be helpful, both for what could be a bonus or reaction action, and what shouldn't be.

[False God]

Imagine if instead of being written "you have a bonus action each round that you can use if and only if you have an ability that says you can use your bonus action" it read "you have a bonus action you can use to do things like X, Y, Z, or other similar quick actions as determined by the DM". Of course then you'd need some decent advice for DMs and players about how to deal with stuff, and the track record there isn't exactly stellar.

The reason they they did this, (not exactly a good reason but still the reason) was the feeling in 4E that you weren't maximizing your combat utility if you weren't using up every part of your turn. If you left your bonus action on the table, it meant you weren't playing to the best of your ability.

But I agree with your initial line of "they don't really have one" because that design was on purpose. Instead of providing some simple things that could always be done with a bonus action, they just said "you don't have a bonus action", and then only handed out bonus actions as a sort of special feature by certain abilities. I remember early 5E, some classes just didn't get to take bonus actions. Some classes really got the best of this deal, it made monks and rogues really feel "fast" because they were almost always using their bonus action to do more every turn. Other classes ended up being slow, never getting a bonus action at all, action, move, action, move over and over.

In the same way they eliminated movement as a form of action, it's now something else. Some kind of weird inbetween thing that is both an action and not an action. Although I do like this design for movement. I hated the "if you only use part of it, you lose the rest" from earlier editions.

Personally I think everyone should just get two Actions, forget the Bonus Action. Forget the Reaction. A Reaction is just an unused Action, either because your turn hasn't happened or because you Held.

[Psyren]

Personally I think everyone should just get two Actions, forget the Bonus Action. Forget the Reaction. A Reaction is just an unused Action, either because your turn hasn't happened or because you Held.

Acting off-turn is very powerful in a turn-based game; that's why Ready is so limited both in 5e and PF2. In 5e, if you pick the wrong trigger your readied action is wasted. Even in the situation you describe of multiple equal Actions (which is why I brought up PF2, because that was their approach), they not only used the wasted trigger approach but also made Ready inordinately expensive as well; it costs 2 actions+Reaction instead of 1+Reaction, and if it's an attack, it inherits the multiattack penalty you had on your turn too.



Imagine if instead of being written "you have a bonus action each round that you can use if and only if you have an ability that says you can use your bonus action" it read "you have a bonus action you can use to do things like X, Y, Z, or other similar quick actions as determined by the DM". Of course then you'd need some decent advice for DMs and players about how to deal with stuff, and the track record there isn't exactly stellar.

I'd be happy with letting your second Object Interaction in a round cost a bonus action or action (your choice.) That would open up a lot of tactical options without taking up much power.

[False God]

Acting off-turn is very powerful in a turn-based game; that's why Ready is so limited both in 5e and PF2. In 5e, if you pick the wrong trigger your readied action is wasted. Even in the situation you describe of multiple equal Actions (which is why I brought up PF2, because that was their approach), they not only used the wasted trigger approach but also made Ready inordinately expensive as well; it costs 2 actions+Reaction instead of 1+Reaction, and if it's an attack, it inherits the multiattack penalty you had on your turn too.

I think Ready is, and I cannot emphasize this enough, an absolutely terrible mechanic. There is only one state needed "Hold". You take your turn, some or all of it, and then Hold, or don't, the rest. You don't need to declare when or what you're waiting for. You just declare you are acting in response to something else that happened.

I think PF2 missed horribly with this. I think most D20 games miss horribly with reactions, which leads to stale, isometric JRPG-like "turns" where you can do nothing but be potentially hit or missed by the enemy. I think it produces dull gameplay and encourages players to tune out until it is their turn.

[Telok]

Personally I think everyone should just get two Actions, forget the Bonus Action. Forget the Reaction. A Reaction is just an unused Action, either because your turn hasn't happened or because you Held.

Been there, done that, has the caveat "can't do the same action twice a round". Works great, 14+ years published. Just not in WotC D&D.

[False God]

Been there, done that, has the caveat "can't do the same action twice a round". Works great, 14+ years published. Just not in WotC D&D.

D20 based system or something else? Product link? Feel free to PM me if you think it's more appropriate there.

[Telok]

D20 based system or something else? Product link? Feel free to PM me if you think it's more appropriate there.

I encountered a good version in Dungeons the Dragoning, but given that's an unholy blender-on-liquify mash of other systems it got stolen from elsewhere.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Wouldn't take much to convince me they should get rid of reactions entirely.

Please don't. Reactions help keep me awake when it is not my character's turn.