My main concern is that if the enemy fails their save then there is literally nothing stopping them from just continuously casting the spell on their turn until eventually they succeed (either due to passing the saving throw or the player running out of spell slots) or they die.
My other major concern is that beyond a certain point the enemy is going to succeed on just about any saving throw simply because their modifier has outpaced the player's save DC.
We were surprised when we saw how often casters in the 2014 MM were not proficient in Con. Can’t help but wonder if that will hold true in the 2024 MM 🤔
I don't like the feel of the new counterspell. I know that counterspell can be devisive on both sides, but it is just too iconic to remove. I think I would run the old counterspell. If I wanted to try out the con save version, I may use the old counterspell and add on if the spell is countered, they can do the con save to try and save their spell slot. Or maybe the new counterspell just gets a new name and maybe a few other adjustments, and they co-exist. Though with the no multiple leveled spells on your turn removing the ability to use reactions spells with slots on your turn I may also include in my own games a small change that reactions are exempt from the one level slot per turn cause reactions.
I like it a lot! Monsters don't use spell slots anymore, they just get to use spells x times a day. This makes it more harmful to monsters since it stops them from casting that ability agin, but doesn't lock a player out of using their 8th level spell slot, just delays it nd messes them up a turn. Feels better for the player AND lets the DM cast counterspell more without it feeling like the DM just saying "No" to the cool thing you wanted to do.
That’s very notable about monsters (typically for 2024?) no longer using spell slots. Thank you very much for mentioning that! It probably depends on the style game each group is looking for to determine if it’s good or not… there will most likely be a lot of mixing and matching when it comes to these changes!
The CON saving throw makes sense to me as that is the same as a Concentration check. I think they didn't call it a Concentration check because of Warcaster being so dang strong already.
I didn't have an issue with the prior iteration but I DM for a group that doesn't strive to abuse mechanics and is comfortable with homebrew rulings if something feels cheesy. That may have skewed my perception of its mechanics. But the new one feels to me like a nerf, which never really feels good. I think that @vanessaaves3271 suggestion of using the spellcasting modifier of the caster is reasonable, especially when spell description gives no reason for the Con save. Conversely, I think it should definitely cause them to burn that slot. For 2 reasons, first you are burning a slot to cast counterspell and secondly, because as mentioned in the vid, they're just going to replicate the attempt each round you prevent it. Sure they burn some action economy but that pales to the value of that precious high level spell slot.
This is such a good comment. Thank you for providing the reasons why you think/feel the way you do. The spell slot thing has Jake’s head spinning a little bit. That part is very player friendly, right? If a PC is successfully countered, it doesn’t hurt nearly as much. If an enemy is successfully countered, sure they might try again next round but the spell slot cost won’t matter as much because they’re probably just going to use everything they’ve got in this one fight anyway… right?
I think it 100% should be based off the spell casting modifier of the countered caster. Not losing a spell slot is good, I suppose. Though, you are losing a slot by casting it as your reaction. You’d like an even exchange of everyone losing one slot is a bit more fair. 🤷🏻♀️ I dunno. I’ve never cast counterspell or been in a came that someone has, so I don’t have personal experience with it.
I like the idea of countering a spell, and feel that this is a good way to reduce how often it will occur. The attacker doesn't lose a spell slot if their spell is countered, but the person countering the spell has expended a slot. That means it's not productive to counter spells repeatedly, as you'll soon find yourself depleted, facing a foe who hasn't used up their slots. Nice to stop that Fireball, but you know they can try again next round, so you'd better do something to stop them from trying it again.
From a strategic standpoint, it’s usually the best play to attack mages first. This will probably enhance the urgency of that. Time using it is going to be the only thing that will really give us an idea but we’re starting to suspect it will succeed more often than it will fail when a PC uses it. Will that reduce its use?
I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but I feel like it makes sense, in a way, for the saving throw to be CON since that aligns with the CON save required to maintain concentration, and thematically that works... the counter is trying to break your ability to maintain the casting of the spell in a way.
Yeah, there’s definitely a certain logic to that, but why not just call it a concentration check and let it interact with Warcaster? I can’t help but think this is probably just designed to be more player friendly. If it happens to a PC, they keep their slot and most casters in the MM (2014 at least) do not have Con save proficiency. It’s the only thing that sort of makes sense to us… for now at least
I don't like the imbalance of the caster not losing a spell slot. It's Simply not fair and it feels like a dumbed down everyone wins approach to grab new players! It's hurts Abjuration builds which struggle as is. It takes away from strategy and consequences.
I’ve never really had thoughts about counterspell one way or the other. I think for the most part it’s fine 🤷♂️ but maybe I don’t care too much for it, since I typically don’t take it. I agree you handsome gentlemen, the con save for it is def odd. Just gonna have to wait and see!
I’m glad you’re still happy with 5e! I think after 10 years, new options are good for the game. Since the base game is the same it will be very easy to use what you like and ignore what you don’t.
What do you think about these changes? Will you use the 2014 or the 2024 version in your games?
Yes I am going to use 2024, but will certainly be homebrewing a few changes and maybe even keep a few 2014 rules/abilities based on preference.
My main concern is that if the enemy fails their save then there is literally nothing stopping them from just continuously casting the spell on their turn until eventually they succeed (either due to passing the saving throw or the player running out of spell slots) or they die.
My other major concern is that beyond a certain point the enemy is going to succeed on just about any saving throw simply because their modifier has outpaced the player's save DC.
Yeah, this is the big one and it is a very player friendly change. The real loss is the action economy resource.
We were surprised when we saw how often casters in the 2014 MM were not proficient in Con. Can’t help but wonder if that will hold true in the 2024 MM 🤔
I don't like the feel of the new counterspell. I know that counterspell can be devisive on both sides, but it is just too iconic to remove.
I think I would run the old counterspell. If I wanted to try out the con save version, I may use the old counterspell and add on if the spell is countered, they can do the con save to try and save their spell slot. Or maybe the new counterspell just gets a new name and maybe a few other adjustments, and they co-exist.
Though with the no multiple leveled spells on your turn removing the ability to use reactions spells with slots on your turn I may also include in my own games a small change that reactions are exempt from the one level slot per turn cause reactions.
We can definitely see many tables using the old or modified versions to their liking
I like it a lot! Monsters don't use spell slots anymore, they just get to use spells x times a day.
This makes it more harmful to monsters since it stops them from casting that ability agin, but doesn't lock a player out of using their 8th level spell slot, just delays it nd messes them up a turn.
Feels better for the player AND lets the DM cast counterspell more without it feeling like the DM just saying "No" to the cool thing you wanted to do.
That’s very notable about monsters (typically for 2024?) no longer using spell slots. Thank you very much for mentioning that! It probably depends on the style game each group is looking for to determine if it’s good or not… there will most likely be a lot of mixing and matching when it comes to these changes!
The CON saving throw makes sense to me as that is the same as a Concentration check. I think they didn't call it a Concentration check because of Warcaster being so dang strong already.
I think many see it that way. Objectively speaking, it favors Sorcerers. We’re of the mindset that that isn’t fair.
I didn't have an issue with the prior iteration but I DM for a group that doesn't strive to abuse mechanics and is comfortable with homebrew rulings if something feels cheesy. That may have skewed my perception of its mechanics. But the new one feels to me like a nerf, which never really feels good. I think that
@vanessaaves3271 suggestion of using the spellcasting modifier of the caster is reasonable, especially when spell description gives no reason for the Con save. Conversely, I think it should definitely cause them to burn that slot. For 2 reasons, first you are burning a slot to cast counterspell and secondly, because as mentioned in the vid, they're just going to replicate the attempt each round you prevent it. Sure they burn some action economy but that pales to the value of that precious high level spell slot.
This is such a good comment. Thank you for providing the reasons why you think/feel the way you do.
The spell slot thing has Jake’s head spinning a little bit. That part is very player friendly, right? If a PC is successfully countered, it doesn’t hurt nearly as much. If an enemy is successfully countered, sure they might try again next round but the spell slot cost won’t matter as much because they’re probably just going to use everything they’ve got in this one fight anyway… right?
I think it 100% should be based off the spell casting modifier of the countered caster. Not losing a spell slot is good, I suppose. Though, you are losing a slot by casting it as your reaction. You’d like an even exchange of everyone losing one slot is a bit more fair. 🤷🏻♀️ I dunno. I’ve never cast counterspell or been in a came that someone has, so I don’t have personal experience with it.
Yes, the person casting Counterspell loses their spell slot. The person that fails the Con save does not. Only time and experience will really tell.
I like the idea of countering a spell, and feel that this is a good way to reduce how often it will occur. The attacker doesn't lose a spell slot if their spell is countered, but the person countering the spell has expended a slot. That means it's not productive to counter spells repeatedly, as you'll soon find yourself depleted, facing a foe who hasn't used up their slots. Nice to stop that Fireball, but you know they can try again next round, so you'd better do something to stop them from trying it again.
From a strategic standpoint, it’s usually the best play to attack mages first. This will probably enhance the urgency of that. Time using it is going to be the only thing that will really give us an idea but we’re starting to suspect it will succeed more often than it will fail when a PC uses it. Will that reduce its use?
I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but I feel like it makes sense, in a way, for the saving throw to be CON since that aligns with the CON save required to maintain concentration, and thematically that works... the counter is trying to break your ability to maintain the casting of the spell in a way.
Yeah, there’s definitely a certain logic to that, but why not just call it a concentration check and let it interact with Warcaster? I can’t help but think this is probably just designed to be more player friendly. If it happens to a PC, they keep their slot and most casters in the MM (2014 at least) do not have Con save proficiency. It’s the only thing that sort of makes sense to us… for now at least
I don't like the imbalance of the caster not losing a spell slot. It's Simply not fair and it feels like a dumbed down everyone wins approach to grab new players! It's hurts Abjuration builds which struggle as is. It takes away from strategy and consequences.
Choices are always more meaningful when there are consequences to making them. Very curious to see how it all plays out.
I’ve never really had thoughts about counterspell one way or the other. I think for the most part it’s fine 🤷♂️ but maybe I don’t care too much for it, since I typically don’t take it.
I agree you handsome gentlemen, the con save for it is def odd. Just gonna have to wait and see!
Hehehe you called us handsome
@@JNJTabletop to think otherwise would be deceit, and that’s not cool.
To be called handsome by someone that is handsome is pure 🤌🏻
@@JNJTabletop oh you ☺️
I like counter spelling a counter spell
How about when your countering counter is countered? Some tables use some house rules to limit this kind of interaction
@@JNJTabletop until those who can counter charm are spent. It's magnificent and hilarious. Idgaf what house rules people use, you do you mate
A very strong counter argument right there 😉
This game always shines best when you make it your own
2014 rules were the best yet. Overthinking and overcomplicating the game now imo. We've only heard of a couple of tweaks we would make so far.
I’m glad you’re still happy with 5e! I think after 10 years, new options are good for the game. Since the base game is the same it will be very easy to use what you like and ignore what you don’t.