How important is Counterspell?

[Gtdead]

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

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

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

[ad_hoc]

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Another place to apply passive Perception or Passive Arcana as a tool.

[Psyren]

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

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

[Kane0]

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not a fan of the Xanathar ruling either. Note that it IS still possible to know what you're counterspelling even with that rule - you just need two characters/reactions, one to identify the spellcast and the other to counterspell it. Both reactions occur before the spell goes off. Some groups may want this kind of teamwork

I do not play at any table where any of the players could pull off that kind of teamwork - save one group - but on line play may be the core obstacle here. I can see how in person play and a decently engaged group could establish that kind of teamwork/synergy.

[Foolwise]

Who else is in your group?

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

[Greywander]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

[Greywander]

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

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

[Kane0]

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

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

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

[Snails]

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

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

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

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

[Greywander]

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

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

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

That's true, but it's contingent on you surviving the current encounter. Some encounters aren't especially dangerous, so throwing out a couple cantrips should be fine, especially if you're anticipating more difficult encounters later on. But surviving the current encounter always has higher priority than conserving resources for future encounters that may or may not happen.

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

[Gtdead]

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

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

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

[tokek]

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

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

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

[Foolwise]

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

[Gtdead]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

[Gtdead]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

I like that idea, but I guess it's not in any official material yet. (And I ponder on the use of passive stealth shenanigans if there's a rogue in the party )

For the OP:

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

Dwarf Beast Barbarian - new player, pretty straight forward build

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

[Gtdead]

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

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

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

Did I misunderstand your point?

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

[tokek]

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

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

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

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

[Gtdead]

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



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

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

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

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

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

[Foolwise]

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

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

Spoiler: Build Progression

Show

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kenny_Snoggins]

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

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

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

[Witty Username]

Just go glamour it will be fun.

[MrCharlie]

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

Counterspell is one of those spells that is only relevant if the group has established it's own caster meta around it. If, as the first person to pick it, you're not certain-don't worry about it.

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

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

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

[Second Wind]

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

Yeah, enemy caster stat blocks usually have too many spell slots for a single encounter. They could be designed around limited resources by giving them fewer slots (say, one slot per level) but they usually get the same number as a PC caster would.