Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Counterspell is TERRIBLE
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- literally the worst
Here are some links to items I reference in the video.
SlyFlourish - slyflourish.co...
Davvy Chappy's Take on Counterspell - • Counterspell is Bad
XPtoLevel3's funny video - • DISPEL MAGIC
XPtoLevel3 Dispel Magic - • Dispel Magic is a Dumb...
The Hubris of Nerd Immersion - • Counterspell Is Fun an...
Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG - amzn.to/2A3Vn3N
& A great starting adventure - amzn.to/2zgwWiV
Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG PDF from DriveThruRPG - www.drivethrur...
Questing Beast on DCC RPG - • Dungeon Crawl Classics...
Critical Role Counterspell - • Counterspell. The best...
How to Deal with Counterspell - www.hipstersan...
Reddit - / dm_asking_for_help_wit...
🎤 The Weekly Podcast! The Saturday Morning D&D Show - / saturdaymorningdndshow
🐉 Check out my DMsGuild Adventures!
www.dmsguild.c...
👕 Forgotten Realms Explained T-Shirts!
teespring.com/...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forgotten Realms Explained Playlist ► • Forgotten Realms Expla...
D&D Cosmology Playlist ► • D&D Cosmology, The Pla...
Forgotten Realms Pantheon ► • The Forgotten Realms P...
Follow me on Twitter! ► / jorphdan
Twitch ► / jorphdan
Facebook ► / forgotten-realms-expla...
#DnD #DnD5e #DungeonsAndDragons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday Morning D&D Show!
A weekly Dungeons & Dragons talk show!
/ saturdaymorningdndshow
Or check it out in Podcast Format! 🎙️
anchor.fm/satu...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliate Links:
A List of RPG items I enjoy - amzn.to/393p1SG
My Gaming Wish List! - amzn.to/2OhzKkE
DriveThruRPG - www.drivethrurp...
Your favored solution seems like a very effective way to halt the game.
Absolutely grind it to a complete stop and grid lock even.
I agree! I think for D&D 5e a simple solution is the best one. However doesn't mean I don't love spell duels :)
*star wars warp drive failure sound*
I had to stop when the chart was shown around 9:40. To think I should consult that chart during gameplay is crazy
This. I mean it sums it up perfectly. To be fair the dual sounds fun, if you were the only player. (Wizard Spends ten+ minutes dueling) “hurray I lessened his damage to all of us!” The fighter: “ya so I attack him.” (Rolls and does his damage). “Whelp I’m gonna go play PS4 can someone come get me when it’s my turn again?”
I was with you right up until your use of Critical Role as an example.
That counterspell did not "grind the game to a halt." It was among the most tense, difficult, emotional choices in the entire campaign. The character in question sacrificed the only chance he had to save his friend's life, because if he did not use counterspell right then, in the way he had, by the 5e rules, the world would have been lost to a God of Undeath. He spent the next five minutes silently weeping because he knew he wouldn't be able to save his friend's life.
Sure, combat slowed down. It's true. But as far as I'm concerned, THAT is the heart and soul of D&D: A player faced with an impossible choice, who had to sacrifice greatly for the good of the entire world.
yeah grind to a hault is a bit too much to say. But it was so matter of fact. "Oh you cancel it... yep let's check the rules. Ok you do.. all right... so that's done.."
It became such an important spell in that campaign, and I don't think it was ever flashy or cool. The spell slot sacrifice was important and cinematic, but for role play reasons.
@@Jorphdan Its a roleplaying game. Not a war game. The war game elements are just the tasty frosting on the ttrpg.
@@Jorphdan them not making it a "flashy or cool" scene wasn't due to counterspell being a bad mechanic. it was because all of them new and felt what just happened, what Sam gave up by using his only 9th lvl slot. and because of all that tension they didn't describe it in a cool way.
Exactly... Also that encounter lasted like more than 2 hours, a single turn took minutes to complete.
I think it was a completely wrong example, even if his critique of Counterspell does make sense.
If they couldn't stop every single spell before that, there would have been a lot more tension throughout the entire game. Counterspell is something that seems interesting when you look at it first as a player, and if you only play it as a player who uses it and not on the receiving end of it constantly, but it is extremely problematic for game balance, and makes it practically impossible to throw a spellcaster at a party who isn't many, many levels above what the players are at once they reach 3rd level spells. Even then, there's still a chance that Counterspell completely nullifies the enemy as a threat.
Citing a single example of when something cool happened because of the spell, when it most certainly could have happened using other rules still, does not make this point invalid. You can make literally anything be cool if it's in the right context, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to begin with.
So if you ask me the video you linked for critical role proves why its actually a great spell. Scanlan uses counterspell a few times against Vecna, but every time he does so he did it at a high level just to be sure. Not only did it not bog down the gameplay, it was proven to be a great support spell which prevented his friends from getting hurt and possibly dying. He saved his friends while sacrificing 7th-9th level spell slots and from the other player's reactions they were relieved, thankful, and laughing and they were clearly having a good time. Vecna probably only lost ~4th-6th level spells so it was a bigger sacrifice on Scanlan's part than Vecna's but it was sacrifices he was willing to make to protect the other party members.
I would consider this a good role play moment, not a good "risk/reward due to Counterspell" moment. If that makes sense. The sacrifice he had to make was an internal role play choice, not a "will this counterspell succeed" which is what I was proposing. A dice roll, a chance, that counterspell could not work.
Jorphdan but that gamble chance of wil it succeeded is already there. In a 1d20+spell lvl. The only thing that is problematic is the fact that a normal lvl 3 spell slot counter spell can stop a lvl 9 spell or equivalent.
I think a solution could be that there would be a bonus to the dc based on the spell slot difference. So that a lvl 3 spell slot can not easily cancel a 5+ spell.
@@trevorboeije9520 I see what you mean and have no problem with it, but I'd spin it a different way as well: a higher-level CS should have an advantage over a base 3rd level casting against the same spell. So a 5th level CS vs a 6th level casting should work more often than a 3rd level CS would. So like I'd said above, maybe DC of 10 + (Cast level - CS level) instead of 10 + Cast level? And as far as the How can a 3rd level spell stop a 9th level spell maybe spin it like this: there's basic fundamentals to magic and casting spells regardless of level and CS interferes with that. Sort of like if you pull the fuse and turn the power off to an outlet it stops both a $10 toaster and a $3000 computer plugged into it. MindCanon it like it short-circuits the Weave for a second or something. YMMV.
@@Jorphdan I loved the video. I'd make a homebrew like this: you can try to counterspell any spell. They have to roll an arcana check, whose AC will depend on whatever the spell is. For instance, i would make it very hard for a wizard specialized on evocation to interfere with a warlock's or cleric's magic, since those spells come from a divinity/being.
Also i'd apply the counterspell to be a high risk/high reward bet like you suggested. Where the wizard has to chose beforehand whether they wanted to redirect it, cut off the power, make it blow up, etc. But a failure means the wizard can't cast anything but cantrips. (Maybe if they tried to blow it up, you can make the spell increase its power on a failure.)
Oof. As soon as you said that a caster would have to counter a spell with the same spell, I thought, no. Then you brought up the giant table of spell momentum and I thought NOOOOOO.
It isn't broken. A lot of people (including you, it would seem) have inadvertently buffed it, and are complaining about how powerful it is after these buffs. Just play it how it was intended: you don't actually know what spell is being cast when you decide whether or not you're going to counterspell it . This makes the counterspeller be the one making the gamble, rather than the original caster. You might counterspell a fireball, or you might have just wasted a counterspell on a Light spell. No need for the absurd, convoluted system proposed in the video, which does far, far more to bog down the game than any counterspell ever could.
imo you're exactly correct. plus, the fact that you need to see the creature and be within 60 ft of them, you can easily work around counterspell if it's really that much of an issue
Yeah you're absolutely right. This is a non-issue when played properly.
the fact that counter spell consumes a 3rd level slot or higher already makes it a gamble if your say... A warlock. how many spell slots do they get again? 3?
I don't like the idea of mind games in combat, it makes the DM more adversarial. As a DM I decide to cast a 7th level spell my player casts counterspell but doesn't know what level so shot in the dark he counters it with a 7th level.
So as a DM I start casting cantrips baiting my player to use high level counterspells?
What about on the reverse, my player says I cast Fireball. I know as a DM what level fireball is so I counter it accordingly. I have to play dumb and think "the monster would probably use a 6th level slot?"
If we just leave it up to dice and not mind games it would be more fun. A simple CON or INT saving throw would be good enough for me. Thanks for your input, great comment! :)
@@Jorphdan This has zero to do with mindgames. An adversarial DM problem is not a counterspell problem. They will create problems with or without counterspell. Counterspell is the innocent bystander here.
As a non-adversarial DM, you simply need to decide under what conditions your monsters will counterspell, and at which level, and stick to those conditions. For example, the creature might decide he's going to counterspell the next spell the wizard casts, but he's not going to bother counterspelling the ranger. And he's going to do it at lvl 3. Decide it and stick to it. We ask our players to avoid that kind of metagaming all the time; it's absurd to say that the monsters they fight should be allowed to (or worse, that we should alter game mechanics because one person (DM) can't handle it!). Any DM that does metagame their monsters' counterspell casts isn't falling victim to a bad spell design; they're just being a bad DM, and that has nothing to do with counterspell. If we got rid of everything that a bad DM could use to make the game worse, we'd be left with no game at all.
🧐 It functions perfectly fine and works as intended. The only negative is the butt hurt of the person that had their spell countered which isn’t an inherent problem of the spell or the system, but is the problem of the one offended.
The DM/player should just describe it more thrillingly than "Nope".
J Mc exactly!
Id argues a lot of the problem is that a 3rd level spell can counter ANY spell. Rather, if a 3rd level countered just 3rd, it'd make more sense, but no matter where you are, it can always ruin your plans.
It isnt helped by the fact that many monsters do not have spellcasting, and when they do, they may just no have spell slots. This makes Counterspell a tactical decision for a player
On the DMs side, they could give any spellcasting monster Counterspell, and the party, which almost always has a spellcaster, will have any and maybe all of their spells taken.
AKA its heavily weighted against players which is not a good design for a spell.
I strongly disagree with this. Counterspell is great, it gives players and dms more agency over enemy spellcasting, like a spellcaster should. It also gives the fluff of being an adept of the weave, not just the arcane or divine, because the weave of magic is universal, its what ties this universe together.
I think counterspell is fine the way it is. If the dm wants to limit spells or class features, go ahead. I just don't think your solutions offer anything that's needed. If anything, you should adopt, and maybe modify the rules in xanathar's guide to make it faster for checking what spell is cast, maybe requiring a spell check.
"The Weave is what gives a spellcaster his power. it's an invisible energy field that touches all things; it surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the multiverse together."
Gonna have to completely disagree. I ran OotA through level 20 and counterspell was just something that every caster did every round, party or otherwise. Every round they got a semi-reliable means of completely negating an action. There is no real counterplay beyond standing further away, which is not that interactive in my opinion. I think the arcane magic only feature is a nice touch to it because yeah, wizards and most sorcerers do only use arcane. What would it hurt, really? It gives bards a nice middle ground, too.
Counterspell is fine. It doesn't need changing.
I respectfully disagree.
There are many weaknesses and flaws to counterspell.
FIRST. you only get one reaction per round.
SECOND. Its a gamble. By the rules in XGE you have to make an arcana check to identify the spell (there is a flaw as this check technically uses a reaction but most DMs would agree in making the reaction check just be a part of the counterspell reaction).
THIRD. You also have to make a check if the spell you wich to counter is of a higher spell slot than the one you used to cast counterspell.
FOURTH. The spell has a range of 60ft. If your caster is out of counterspell range it cannot be countered.
FIFTH. It requires line of sight. You have to see the spell being cast. So perhaps the caster can take cover behind a wall, or is concentrating on greater invisibility, or is perhaps using metamagic to subtle spell or is even just a 20th level druids who don't need to use V, S or M components (unless costly).
SIXTH. It uses a resource. Yeah sure the wizard in the party just counterspelled the enemies spell by expending a 3rd level slot. But that also means they can't do an additional hypnotic pattern, slow or fireball.
SEVENTH. If the problem is that counterspell ruins a caster's fun there are a multitude of spells that can *counter* counterspell aside from the caster just uno-reverse-carding the counterspell with a counterspell.
Heck I'll list some of them right now:
- Minor illusion
- Silent Image
- Magic Missile (so they use their reaction casting Shield instead)
- Blindness/Deafness
- Darkness
- Slow
- Sleet Storm
- Hypnotic Pattern (FUN FACT: If you are concentrating and are incapacitated by a Hold Person or Hypnotic Pattern or Banishment or any other affect, such as Stunning Strike, you lose concentration!)
- Temporal Shift
- Wall of Force
- Globe of Invulnerability
- Forcecage
- Antimagic Field
- Prismatic Wall
- OR literally any other spell that doesn't let spells pass through it or blocks the enemies line of sight or has an intricate interaction with other spells or just be out of range.
- PLUS all the plethora of effects that aren't spellcasting.
EIGHTH. OR you know..... maybe counterspell?!?!?!? ...... Yeah it burns through slots, so what? You have to think more about your resource and start using all the tricks in the book.
OVERALL: Just be a bit more creative.
Great response thanks! :D
SECOND: if we incorporate XGE rules, then you use your reaction to make an Arcana check, and thus can't counterspell. So I don't think that is intended for every game. WotC wants the core books (PHB, MM, DMG) to stand by themselves.
I do feel they were trying to tweak counterspell by adding that in XGE.
Does Counterspell take away fun, or is it just a spell that requires you to just be more careful when casting spells? (Girl, you can hide and cast a spell, go 70ft away, hell a Globe of Invulnerability can stop most Counterspells). I really dont get this obsession that Counterspell is such a huge burden on 5E, it really isnt that deep
No, he's right. It does take away fun and needs some fine tuning like he's doing.
I agreed, it's just not hard to counter the counterspell. Just use greater invisibility for exemple
@@tiagopedrosa6746 greater invisibility, any spell with a range over 60 feet or if you don't need to be seeing the other spellcaster to hit it if an AOE or something just hide from their view.
Counterspell can be better, but it's not a fun destroying mechanic to me at least.
@@Zeemis it really doesnt. the fact it burns a third level spell slot and is fairly short ranged and forces the caster into the front line makes it a big enough gamble.
@@son0fgrim You might be surprised at how little of a gamble it is in late game 5e. Speaking from experience, when everyone is dropping Globes and counterspelling everything, it really doesnt actually mean risking much. Nevermind if you have a cleric.
"If I toss a fireball, it will do damage." Really? A rogue with a ring of evasion might disagree.
Or any rogue really, at least in my experience...
Lich: how are you still alive of my fireball lv9?
Rogue that succeded the dex save and has evasion: i have no idea!
Actually, I was thinking "what if I am immune to fire damage"?
Or monks, just... monks in general lmao
@@FarothFuin Wizard who cast Absorb Elements, making the mere 14d6 damage half as effective with a first level slot, rendering the 9th level spell pointless: Better question - why did you cast a fireball at level nine?
You could always just assume "counter spell" is a disruption of all magic in a target area (like dispel magic). No real reason to make it more complicated than that. It disrupts heal as easily as a fireball by rending the threads of the weave temporarily.
Holy shit. Here's a crazy idea. Counterspell affects everything magical in it's 60 foot range for one round. That's the NPC spellcasters and you. New spells can't be cast in that area, but previously cast ones like Invisibility are still active. New spells can't be cast into the area. You would use Dispel Magic to get rid of Invisibility, in this example. But you couldn't cast Dispel Magic because you just cast Counterspell, and now everything is off-line for one round, like a small version of Antimagic Field. This is why your Wizard should always have a Light Crossbow.
When you or an NPC casts Counterspell, the magical energies of your world are ripped apart and reshuffled, like a computer game glitch. For a few seconds, magic doesn't know what to do. It has forgotten how to Magic.
Too much? I don't know. You're the DM. You decide. Maybe Counterspell is a well-guarded secret, known only to a secret order, a international cabal, or followers of the God Of Magic. Maybe it's a 4th level spell, and most people use 3rd level Dispel Magic.
@@paulcoy9060 Your idea would be cool if you were sorcerer! Imagine if they could get the ability to disrupt the magic around them* because they're an actual entity of raw magic. It would still need some amends like: effect last until the start of the sorcerer's next turn so they wouldn't become an -almost- normal guy, the area of efect would be something like a 10-30 foot sphere (like paladin's aura I imagine), if actived spells are concentration, you must make a concentration check because "everything gone crazy man" and perhaps innate spellcasters could still cast magic, or casters could cast cantrips if succeed on a spellcasting ability check DC (base 10 to make it easy, the sorcere's spellsave DC so it could scale). I don't know, I think it would be cool, probably I'll try it with my group.
Not all magic comes from the weave. There are warlocks and clerics. (Correct if i'm mistaken)
@@lucase.crusader1196 all magic comes from the Weave just Warlocks, Clerics, and Druids are going through and Intermediary to access it.
I dont see the issue with counterspell, and the recent obsession with it confuses me. I dont feel like it stops the game. Sure it might make you rethink and readapt to the situation, but mostly its a good thing. I also dont see Scanlan's use of counterspell as a loss. It was the most dramatic thing to happen. There was a cost to stopping Vecna and that was it. It was beautiful storytelling! And that system you suggested is way to complex to try and introduce to 5e. At that extent, you're playing a different game. Which is fine to go and enjoy, it just not 5e anymore.
I feel like people who have one bad experiance with the spell go off the rails. Globe of invulnerability, staying out of sight while casting, or even just force counter spell casters to declare counter spell before they know what the enemy is casting would all "fix" counter spell with out changing the rules.
Aye, that`s it. OR (for all whining?! wizards): just play a sorcerer with subtle spell and don`t even smile when you counter - just point onto the Fighter
I strongly disagree as I feel that it makes wizards what they are, masters of magic and with the rule that you have to roll to counter spells higher than the spell slot used for counter spell it becomes tactical and in the players favour as they usually are driving the story. The problem that sometimes arise is that enemies usually arrive at full capacity and heroes do not. But with the fact that enemies often believe they are superior and thus do not always outcast their counter spell, my experience is that it evens out. And if priests are so sad because they get countered once in a blue moon I would advice that they bring out that heavy weapon and show the mage what melee means, or tactically upcast or fake cast a powerful spell to have it countered to allow the wizards disintegrate to... well, disintegrate.
Also forgot about the 60 foot range and requirement of seeing the spellcaster to which there are a pile of ways to get around intelligently. I have even been betting on the opponent wizard countering so that my priests silent would be safe.
Eesh, on one hand I understand the frustration of having a spell being countered, but also I've seen a 3rd level counterspell be successful against a 9th level spell with a DC 19 tied to its success/failure. There was plenty of tension at the table watching our level 8 bard successfully counterspell a lich (which was amazing to watch), and it was a turning point for our group in that encounter and everyone got to see the improbable happen. As a fellow DM, I'm excited to see my players take the (sometimes necessary) countermeasures in order to succeed and progress. I don't get to play with many seasoned players at my table, so admittedly if I was constantly on the receiving end of a spell I deemed exploitative, that could be tiresome, but I feel there are plenty of other spells that could be argued as being as abusive, if not more so (guidance, bless/bane, metamagic's subtle spell, and prestidigitation come to mind).
Finally, I don't want this to come off as a criticism or have you be offended by my inquiry as I really do enjoy your content and have often binged on your videos, but do you find it difficult to build a narrative around the affects of counterspell? There are certain moments in the game where I struggle to find the narrative I want to convey in order to make the action/reaction/bonus actions at my table flashy and exciting, but I take that as a personal challenge to find the right way to make those moments stand out narrative-wise the next time that arises. Once again, I really do enjoy your videos and I look forward to watching more of your stuff. Thanks for sharing your POV and putting your opinion out there on what is seemingly a controversial subject matter!
I cannot see this as a problem. Counterspell is an important defensive tool against spellcasters by spellcasters. Taking it away just makes casters more powerful as a consequence, both allies and enemies.
It doesn't fix anything to change it, because there is nothing that needs to be fixed. Counterspell exists for a very good reason, and pretending it's broken is just the wrong thing to do.
No-one is "pretending" it's broken, I'm not the only one with this opinion. And there are so many people homebrewing rules to make it more usable which means the community has a problem with it. I don't see anyone homebrewing rules for fireball.
@@Jorphdan Because Fireball does simple and effective AoE damage. Counterspell is a purely defensive tool that people whine about because one wizard in a blue moon uses it on them when they decided to try and make a big play. It doesn't require "fixing", regardless of how many people seem to think so, because it isn't actually an issue.
If people have a problem with one of the fundamental counters to magic, then maybe they should try being more conservative and careful about their magic use once they realize an opponent can use it. Counterspell is like a shield, and it is the job of the attacker to determine how to work around it, whether they be the players or the enemies. Besides, using Counterspell burns a spell slot, and, if you don't know what level the spell is, then it may not even work unless you spend a higher, and more scarce, spell slot.
If you really need a solution for the sake of player enjoyment, then just roll to determine what spell slot an enemy uses when they decide to use Counterspell. Create a table with lower spell slots having a higher likelihood than higher ones. This could represent the enemy attempting to guess at how powerful the spell the player is using while also considering their own spell reserves. This doesn't require changing the rules in any way, instead only requiring you to modify the behavior of an NPC.
@@cryw1092 I agree with parts of this, however I have to chime in on the "once in a blue moon" part. High level campaigns have a lot of casters. Tons, even. Beyond level 15, very few fights shouldn't realistically involve a spellcaster depending on the campaign. At that point, you can realistically expect them to be counterspelling every turn and for the party to do the same. It is incredibly common in high level play for a player to use half of their spell slots on counterspell in an appropriate encounter. I somewhat agree that it should act as a shield, but as it is currently balanced, it's too strong. When you're dealing with larger combats where you can expect a couple minutes between your turns, does it really sound fun to have your entire action negated because your character is a spellcaster? This is a real problem in late game 5e.
@@cryw1092 That's what I do in my game and it work just fine.
@@thisguy6466 just get used to being negated at high level with enemies with legendary resistances
I would not get rid of Counter spell entirely, that seems far to extreme
I personally feel your proposed system is a little to complex. But I appreciate the amount of thought you put into it.
I feel that instead of it being an automatic success if you meet or surpass the spell level perhaps just make it a d20 or d100 roll with scaling modifier depending on the difference of in spell level
Though I understand this might not satisfy everyone, just an Idea I personally liked
I don't quite understand how it's a problem.
For example, during my groups Curse of Strahd campaign, my sorcerer learned Counterspell and used it during moments he was sure would he dire. When we went to Yester Hill a druid there tried to Polymorph our fighter, and I stopped it. Had I not, it would have screwed us over and not only did it feel fun to take back some power from the dm (not a bad dm mind you), but it was a cool moment of surprising the enemy since they weren't expecting it. Another time I was playing a college of lore bard and the enemy we were fighting tried to banish us, so I used the spell to save us. I ended up rolling just high enough and it was a moment of "oh shit!" that the table was cheering over.
Yes it can get in the way of some cool moments like if your big bad is casting a spell and then gets counter spelled. However that's something that comes naturally with the game.
If anything, the real issue is the spells being used rather than counterspell. Fireball for example is a clear case of balanced when the players use it but overpowered when the enemy has it. If the enemy casts Fireball, its frustrating because its unavoidable damage.
Not saying your wrong, I just dont agree because it seems like it's a case of "as a DM it ruins the experience". If your group has counterspellers, you can find ways around it by being creative, such as using subtle spells.
The problem isn't that a player can waste someone's action, but that a random NPC 5th level wizard can just waste the player's turn. It's a common tool among spellcasters, both PCs and NPCs and it sucks to be on the receiving end as a player.
Confilcts between PC spellcasters also happen and there counterspell is even worse.
Counterspell: is not fun taking someone action with a reaction and there is nothing you can do about it.
me: laughs in subtle spell
what is kinda frustrating for me that counter spell can auto succeed. but what I might do is just make counter spell roll every time how ever spell is used and maybe add a modifier for higher spell slots.
Also the counter spell being only an Arcanest spell.
What would i have loved to see is that counter spell becomes a mechanic in general that all casters can access. that require the counter caster to cast a spell that interact or negate the spell.
"caster A cast cone of cold Caster B counter with fireball"
@@optimus2200 ok, but what would need to be cast to counter Vitriolic Sphere?
your mechanic only works when you assume every single spell in the game has some kind of direct opposite, which is just blatantly not true.
Everyone is talking about counterspell and other dispel magic now -.- as a blue mage i protest
I'm actually fine with counterspell as is.
I think a possible fix for Counterspell would be tacking the line of text that War Magic wizard's reaction ability has onto the bottom:
"When you use this [spell], you can't cast spells other than cantrips until the end of your next turn."
This would make Counterspell still a valid choice as a spell. It retains its primary function, but in return for denying an opponent a spell, you too are denied the ability to cast spells on your next turn. People could still counter a Counterspell if they really don't want to lose their spell on that turn, but the sacrifice of that is the fact that they'd be unable to cast anything but a cantrip on their next.
I think what makes this fix seem especially good to me is the fact that it bounces off an already published ability. It weakens the spell enough that its less annoying, but it remains strong enough that a caster can still choose to take it. It turns it from a necessity into a solid tactical choice.
Anyway that's just my two cents, I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions on this as a potential solution
I was going to suggest this! Clean solution thats already in the rules elsewhere :)
5e is fine and honestly more mechanics to counterspell is just going to bloat time on turns for casters.
From 3e its been a chore to play casters in 5e that 1 spell per turn hurts my inner spellflinger but this has allowed other classes to shine especially the gishy ones like bard and druid. Whos knows what 6e might bring maybe another magic resurgence? heck yeah i'm down for more spells.
Sorcerer, twined spell, your welcome.
The system at the end would not work well cause what it sounds like it does is pauses combat for this cool scene but just makes things slower and slogs the combat for a chance that thinks can get worse meaning the fire ball targeting the fight now becomes way more deadly and so something he could have lived now becomes deadly because his ally took a gamble and lost the idea is cool in a full party of spell casters but the fighter and other martial characters have to wait and see if they are going to suffer or benefit from this.
I immediately reject any system that requires the phrase "yet another table" to describe.
I would say as a player or DM I would be extremely pissed off if every time someone wanted to counter a spell we had to stop the game and do a bunch of rolling and consulting tables just to find out what happened, if this was the rule I would just ban the mechanic
From what Imlearned watching Matthew Mercer and Sam, having more powerful spells saved up that will hurt and even kill the party helps keep the tension. Spoilers for campaign 1 ahead.
I’m referring to their first fight with Vecna when Sam saved a Counterspell that was how they escaped him. If he didn’t, they probably would have had a TPK.
Exactly, that Was one of the few "wow scanlan is actually powerfull" moments and it would have been a damn shame if he didnt get that. Besiddes he only Got to cast that counter Spell because he pulles a fast one on Matt.
don't other classes have similar abilities that let them avoid damage and whatnot, sometimes entirely for free? Like the monk being able to take no damage if they succeed a saving throw, catch arrows out of the sky, etc
I'm sure there are other examples out there, but you get my point. Why can't magic-users have the magical equivalent of what a lot of the physical-based classes have for physical attacks?
Plus, if it's anything other than a reaction, the DM could just choose to never target the person casting counterspell and metagame. Ideally, they wouldn't, but let's be honest here. People would do that. Plain and simple.
So if it's not a reaction, how is it supposed to be useful at all?
edit: here's the exact monk ability I'm referring to, and this is just off the top of my head. Mystic also has a similar thing.
"Deflect Missiles
Starting at 3rd level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your monk level.
If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction. You make this attack with proficiency, regardless of your weapon proficiencies, and the missile counts as a monk weapon for the attack, which has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."
if one applies the logic used in your video, you get to use a free action to not only cancel out another person's action but potentially turn it into FREE DAMAGE for yourself, for really cheap. So why is stuff like this ok, when most classes have some form of counter, but counterspell isn't?
catching an arrow and throwing it back =/= a 5th level caster having a 40% chance (assuming the 5th level caster has a +3 in their casting ability; the chance increases even further if they rolled for stats or something) to completely halt a 9th level spell and effectively END THE ENEMY CASTER'S TURN with just a reaction and a 3rd level spell slot.
@@ChronoBolt actually you can catch anything, as long as it fits in one's hand. Meaning in theory, its actually possible to catch a cannonball or ballista bolt, though this is also dependant on race. improbable, but this is actually possible.
edit: the point im making is that wizards aren't the only one with a counter, how about the luck based classes that can reroll any roll they dont like? stuff like that? there's a lot that could be called unfair, yet everyone seems against this one in particular, and all I have to ask is why? Is it cause you don't get to use the big spell you want?
I haven't had the issue yet at my table, but you could also say "you always roll for counterspell. The level that you cast the spell could result int a bonus or pentalty, such as a 3rd level counterspell against a 5th level cone of cold has a -2 penalty while a 5th level counterspell against a 3rd level fireball has a +2 bonus"
Arcana Check? But what if a home brew Cleric had counterspell, would he roll a Religion Check?
I'll be honest, that spell dueling mechanic sounds like it's going to turn Wizards into the old shadowrun deckers/hackers, Or the psychic duelists of pathfinder. IE, the wizard initiates their spell duel, and suddenly the game is 30 minutes of just their one turn going back and forth between the Enemy Spellcaster and the PC wizard. Even if the rolls theoretically only takes 5 minutes, it'd be 30 due to the amount of back and forth arguments of which table to use, how dice upgrades should work, how fair/unfair the result is, etc. The whole mechanic screams the kind of grinding to a halt math that you see in Pathfinder Counterspell.
Anyone else imagine Gohan and Cell clashing Kamehamehas?
1) At our table, both Counterspell and Dispel Magic always require an ability check. This way, there is no guarantee and we make very little changes to the core rules. By upcasting Counterspell, you make your Counterspell harder to counterspell, so the mechanics stay as close to the original as possible.
2) By changing how Counterspell works, you have to update the Abjuration Wizard's level 10 ability, too. This can create a series of unnecessary changes IMO.
3) The spell duel mechanics sound very complicated in comparison to the rest of the 5E rules. They feel out of place. They can be fun at a table where everyone likes complicated rules, but probably not ideal for most tables.
I never wanna sit at your table, yikes.
so... you dont like getting stun or knockdown?? 2:56
I can increase my con saves etc to up my chances of not getting stunned. Can't with counterspell.
@@Jorphdan you can make counterspell spell point base. if it is the same level of the spell you counter, make the spell caster(the one being counter) do a save. if the counter is one or more level higher it succeed. and maybe boss and other powerful spell caster have a higher save or even a unstoppable spell.
for a more evil DM
you can make a new spell call mock/false-cast, and gave it to a final boss or a legendary spellcater. and make the spell sound and look really dangerous but it may be just a 3 level spell slot. just to bait your players to burn a counter spell, the higher the better.
Oh, so this way a "Strong lich" is less likely to get stopped in comparison to a weak wizard.
while the PC wizard is more likely to get stopped by a "Strong Lich"
@@erroldrommond9149 interesting point
@@ahmedal-modaifea4457 you can also let the DM roll for "divine intervention" to help the players counter a unstoppable spell, or gave your players a ultra rare item that can counter ones per day but have a high chance of breaking.
To counter it with the same spell just feels like a reflavor that may open opportunities for other classes, but also means you would need someone with a reaction, within range, that can see the caster, *and* has the same spell prepared. You're spending the same level slot either way in the end.
And the dueling mechanic is... already part of the spell. If the spell you're countering is of a higher slot than you spent, you roll a spell check vs DC based on spell level. This gives that tense moment you seem to wish for. If the counterer can simply use resources as powerful or more powerful, there's no contest. Of course a 7th level slot spent should counter another 7th slot without rolls. The dilemma and hard choice is if whatever slot you're sacrificing could help your team against the caster *more* than the hindrance allowing their spell to succeed would be.
When I DM as a caster NPC I always describe a build-up to a spell, and then the effects - granting the players an opportunity to interject before knowing exactly what is to come, but getting an idea of how bad it might be (as casting, unless subtled, is *SUPER OBVIOUS*). Big booms take a few moments of wild arm flailing and spooky chanting. They don't counterspell a wall of fire, they counterspell whatever the hell this ominous dude flailing his arms and heavily chanting is trying to cast. That's your risk.
Wonderful video!! 👏👏👏
I agree with the notion - counterspell can really break the momentum. I think the suggested fix is a bit too complex for the spirit of 5E, even though it is a very cool mechanic. I really the idea that a failed counter could have repercussions. Maybe we can simplify it?
Perhaps if you fail on your ability check to counter a spell, you roll on a chart to see what happens. You could actually lose your next action, lose concentration, take damage (that could change according to the spell level) and so on. I feel it is simple enough, and presents consequences for failing, which is what we want. Additionally, I would definitely allow casters to cast a cantrip after their spell was countered.
Everyone I've ever played 5e with, DM's and players alike, love counterspell for a lot of the reasons you mentioned here. It is incredibly powerful, and it is a resource available to both players and DM's. It's the perfect way to even the playing field. The players in my current campaign say counterspell is essential, and feel as though their bases are not covered unless someone has access to it.
And besides, if you really don't want your spell countered, cast it at a higher level.
One thing is for sure. Since we are soon to embark on the Curse of Strahd adventure, since Strahd will be scrying my Players, he will note which spells they favor. His counterspells be more effective than normal. Haven't decided yet.
I don’t think the reaction > action being bad is necessarily a valid argument. Sure a reaction is “quicker” than an action and has fewer things asking for its use than an action does, but 90% of the time, counterspell is off the cuff. Meaning that if someone casts counterspell, they’re likely sacrificing a 3rd level (or higher) spell slot they were planning on using for something important in order to stop another spell (and oftentimes it’s just for a CHANCE to stop that spell). In situations like these, I think it’s a very fair and satisfying risk/reward tradeoff.
solution 1: change the wording that instead of only being able to cast one leveled spell in your turn, to only being able to cast one leveled spell per round. this way casters have to consider more carefully how important it is to them to counter something the enemy may or may not do. solution 2: make it an action instead of a reaction, forcing them to hold until the trigger occurs. this forces players to think ahead. will that guy in his weakened state try to teleport away? better hold counterspell just in case. solution 3: you could change nothing but add the stipulation that you must know the spell the enemy is casting in order to know how precisely to counter it. a wizard could counter anything they have memorized or in their spell book, though i might say something they dont currently have prepared might be more difficult, involving a check or spell save of some kind. casters like clerics would be the same, they can counter anything on their spell list that they have access to at their level, but anything not prepared is more difficult and anything they dont have access to is impossible to counterspell. the same goes for any other classes with access to counterspell. this effectively also bars most classes from countering another classes spells with the exception of those they share in common. I would also argue you cant counter a artificer's casting since its not technically magic, but is the clever use of technology and tinkering that create spell-like effects. they are not arcane, nor divine casters, if you can really call them casters at all.
This is sooooo stylisch, imagine a fireball blocked by a come of cold...
You got the older edition rule slightly wrong. Yes you do prepare individual castings, but in 3e, there is no spell called counterspell. Instead, it's a feat that requires you to ready a standard action to counter a spell as long as you're able to cast the same spell, a dispell magic, or any spell that is explicitly said to counter it. You also need to make a spellcraft check and then an opposed caster level check.
I'm am pretty sure Jeremy Crawford said in an interview that the intent for casting spells with an action was not to limit what you can cast with your reaction or your bonus action but rather to keep you from using two actions to cast two fireballs in the same turn.
I play it like this.
Wizard uses bonus action to Misty Step out of melee, then he uses his action to cast dimension door to grab a fallen ally and pull him somewhere safe. The enemy spellcaster uses counterspell on the dimension door spell. The wizard then uses his reaction to counter, the counterspell which allows his dimension door spell to safely teleport himself and his ally. And lastly, the wizard has a move action that could be used.
Counterspell is still problematic however as two spellcasters with counterspell effectively shut ddown a single spellcasters ability to cast spells 3rd level and below spells. Spellcasters in D&D are vulnerable to being shutdown. One exception is the sorcerer that uses metamagic to cast subtle spells that can neither be countered nor can they be stopped by preventing the casters ability to speak.
With how very powerful and reliable magic is in D&D 5e, it gives players a much needed tool to shut down enemy spellcasters that always have all of their spells for the day.
Also, it reinforces the vulnerability of spellcasters, even if they manage to get high ACs or obtain powerful protections from damage.
I think, and the video outlined that, the big problem is not counterspell, but specifically monsters using counterspell against the PCs, because it sucks out the fun of the moment for very little cost. As a DM, my solution to that has been to not use monsters with counterspell, unless I feel like I'll have a hard time keeping up with my players (and even then, there are other way to make combat even). I don't want to take away a cool weapon from the player's arsenal (countering the BBEG's spell feels good), but I can make unilateral decisions as a DM.
The solution proposed in the video sounds cool (reminds be of DBZ), but is VERY complex, and would stick out as a sore thumb among 5e's somewhat simplistic ruleset. I think it works better in the system it was created for.
A mummy was going to cast a Harm spell at my 5th level Dragon Born wizard. I didn't know that it was a harm spell, but I cast counterspell anyways and succeeded, and it was one of the most badass things I've felt.
I don't get why everyone hating on counter spell when stunning strike is arguably worse because it takes away both casters and non casters turn and a monk could try stunning strike twice a turn
I have the player roll an ability check using your spell casting ability + proficiency VS. DC equals 10 + the spell’s level + the difference between the spell and counter spell.
So a 10th level Wizard wit 18 INT using a 5th level Counter Spell attempts to block a Lich's 9th level Power Word Kill.
D20 + 4 + 4 vs. DC = 10 + 9 + 4 = 23. That's a 15 on the dice to counter.
But if a 15th level Wizard wit 20 INT using a 8th level Counter Spell attempts to block a 5th level Magic Missile that would kill your client.
D20 + 5 + 5 vs. DC = 10 + 5 - 3 = 12. That's a 2 on the dice to counter.
You still have to chose how much you want to stop that spell and how much you are willing to spent to stop it.
What I feel like I'd do:
Counterspell is now eight spells, one of each school, each one capable of countering only its own school.
So if you're interested in ensuring that your enemies don't use magic to escape, you prepare Counterspell: Conjuration.
If you don't want to get blown up, Counterspell: Evocation.
If you're trying to take a shower and there's a bard in existence, Counterpell: Divination.
And so on and so forth.
That way, if you're ever in a fight against an enemy with counterspell, once they use it you know what spells to avoid.
Hell, maybe make it so that something like detect magic can show auras around people based in large part around if they have counterspell prepared, and if so, what domains.
If that's too limiting, you could make each singular domain have one or two additional domains that it also cancels out in a sort of rock paper scissors fashion. For instance:
Enchantment
Divination
Illusion
Transmutation
Conjuration
Abjuration
Evocation
Necromancy
Each one counters itself and the one beneath it, the bottom looping to the top.
No not all of them would make sense.
....
Enchantment messes with your mind to prevent the information from being understood. Divination just straight up reveals the illusion. Illusion prevents the transmuter from seeing what effects they're having, thus screwing up the process. Transmutation closes any portals opened by conjuration... Which would demand that teleport also create a temporary portal, but whatevs. Conjuration creates a barrier bypass or shifts the location to keep abjuration from doing its thing. Abjuration makes a barrier to contain the evocation. Evocation..... Floods the necromancy with positive energy to cancel it out?
No ideas as to why necromancy would screw over enchantment. Maybe enchantment spells, for this sole reason, create a sort of parasitic entity for their duration which causes the various mental effects, and necromancy just kills the thing. I 'unno.
I like the idea of mashing a few of these ideas together.
>Counterspell itself gets errata saying that you cannot use your action next turn so it's not Better Dispel Magic
>you can substitute other spells for Counterspell if the DM rules it appropriate, with the same drawback
>have a simple "spell contest" variant rule/system that allows for partial successes/failures, probably a simple pass/fail of spell attack vs spell attack, with only full-counter, half-power, or no effect outcomes
>have (a) spell(s) that forces a Concentration save that isn't Sleet Storm (I've found a homebrew one from AD&D called Busy Bug that works similarly, summon an annoyance that I converted so that it forces a Concentration save, and they can't cast spells without passing a WIS save, WIS save at end of their turn to get rid of it)
Personally one of my favorite wizard fights was in the Order of the Phoenix movie. No outright denials, just using magic to fight magic in ways that make sense. IMO you should totally be allowed to stop something like Wall of Stone with Transmute Rock (specifically Rock to Mud). That said, there's definitely the issue of this Counterspelling working on the idea that one mage knows what the other is casting, which in my experience everyone and their grandma will be like "oh well I cast it at 7th level now that you said it's Teleport"
the Critical Role clip you mentioned is one of the best examples of why counterspell can be amazing.
As a DM and as a player i have no problem with counterspell. There is rules and ways to get by counterspell. So all you youtubers need to stop crying about this spell.
I think that counter spell should be spit into 3.
Arcane aid
Base spell caster ability or abjuration cantrip.
Components: S
Casting time: reaction
Range: 80ft ( could be altered)
Single allied creature you can see with in range.
When a enemy caster uses a spell you know. As your reaction send arcane energy into you ally to aid them. Adding your spell casting modifier to there initial saving throw.
Cast this before the saving throw is rolled but after the spell has landed it's attack.
Readied counter spell.
2nd lvl abjuration
Components: S
Casting time: bonus action
Range: 60ft
Cast this at the end of your turn.
If an enemy casts a spell before the beginning of your next turn you can choose to activate your counter spell no reaction needed.
If an enemy is casting a 2nd level spell or lower it has no effect.
If the enemy is using a spell of 3rd or higher make an ability check using your spell casting ability.
Dc 10 + the spells level
On a success the spell fails and has no effect.
When using higher level spell slots
The enemy spell fails if it is equal or lower then your spell slot.
At the beginning of your next turn. Even if you have not used the counter spell. You must write off one spell slot of 2nd level or higher.
( Note to Dm's using the above spell. It is intended to have a visual / arcane effect that can be seen / sensed. This allows the opposing caster to know a counter is up. )
Reaction counter spell
2nd lvl adjuration
Components: S
Range: 50ft
Casting time: reaction
After an enemy succeeds in a spell attack roll.
Use your reaction and knowledge of the arcane to dampen the spells effects.
Make an ability check using your spell casting ability.
The DC is 11 + the enemies spell level.
On a success you can choose 1 of the following effects.
Reduce the duration of a spell by half.
Reduce the damage of a spell by half.
Reduce the area of effect from a spell by 5ft. ( Area of effect spells can not be reduced lower then 10ft by this effect)
All allied creatures hit by a spell effect that has a saving roll gain a d4 on there roll untill that effect ends.
For this spell on a critical success the caster of the impacted spell must make a DC 12 constitution saving roll or loose concentration.
I've never run into that problem with Counterspell and the Counterspell that held the boss in Critical Role in place is my favorite moment in the entirety of my time running/playing/watching D&D.
But your solution gave me so many ideas! The chart I think is too much but the idea of counterspell buffing the original spell on a fail would be awesome! And as lot of 5e spells already have a system for uprgrading the level of the spell, that could work (eg. Failing against magic missle ups it by a level giving an extra bolt, failing against a dominate person give extra time on the charm, but failing on a Teleport wouldn't do anything cause there's not much to alter there)
My fix for counterspell:
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell of 3rd level or lower. Make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the opposing casters spellcasting ability. If the creature's spell is of a lower level than your counterspell, you can add the difference to the check. On a success, the creature's spell fails and the counterspell effect listed in the spell description is triggered.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you can attempt to interrupt spells of of a level less than or equal to the level of the spell slot you used.
Examples of counterspell effects:
fireball - if this spell is successfully countered, it explodes in your hands. Treat this, as if you had cast the original fireball centred on yourself.
charm person - if this spell is successfully countered, you are charmed by the target for a minute.
invisibility - if this spell is successfully countered, you are instead only partially invisible, leaving you looking grotesque. You gain advantage on intimidation checks, but disadvantage on all other charisma checks for a minute
polymorph - if this spell is successfully countered, the transformation fails midway through. The target turns into the beast, but lacks any bones. The target is incapacitated and remains in this form until you loose concentration on this spell.
Why I prefer this system:
1) This makes wizard fights much more thematic, instead of a simple war of atricion. (A casts spell, B counterspells, A counterspells the counterspell)
2) multiple low leveled wizards can no longer shut down a high level caster. a few students with a spell or two should not be able to completely remove the lich king from the fight
3) with the original spell, a second level spell from a demon lord was just as easy to counter as that of a 3rd level wizard. That doesn't make sense
Sidenote: Counterspelling a counterspell is still possible, and let's the spell happen as normal. However, it is now more costly, because you can no longer counter a high level counterspell with a 3rd level casting
Quick rant as a counterspell enjoyer.
Sooo i dont know why no one mentions the check for counterspell.
U throw a lvl 5 spell and someone with a +5 only has a 50% chance of stopping it, unless they upcasted their counterspell, now keep in mind a lvl 5 spellslot its more valuable to your players than your monsters since your monster can really blow everything they have in this one fight, while your players have to account those spellslots for the entire day.
Personally i let my players know which spell im casting, but i dont let them know the level and it creates some tense situations in which they have to decide to upcast and fully counter something terrible, or sometimes they are not even able to counterspell without the check just because they do not have spellslots strong enough to stop it without a check, which as mentioned previously it can sometimes be even worse than doing a coin flip.
Additionally just howww manyyy spellcasters are you realistically fighting every day😂, at least from my experience running pretty much every official module from 5E you are usually fighting monsters who do not have spells at all, and when you do find that big baddie wizard they usually have counterspell too. Now you can argue that every single enemy in your campaing is a caster that also happens to have counterspell, but at that point its just silly and you purposely made the game annoying for you and your players.
Lastly does it suck for you as a player to be counterspelled, yes it does but too bad, most of the time the enemies will not have counterspell and in all of those combats you can do wutever you want, plus they can only counter 1 spell as it takes a reaction, which means that the next player can throw their strongest encounter ending spell without fear of being countered, remember this is a team game, and you eating that counterspell will let your homie shine.
Soooo the way I'd handle might be to probably make countermagic a feat (you could pick it up at 4th level) and it gives you the ability to "challenge a spell" as a reaction. When you challenge a spell, make an opposed check against the caster and if you succeed, their spell is counted. If you fail, their spell succeeds and you can't cast a non-cantrip spell during your next turn.
My approach to 'fixing' Counterspell has just been to change the language I use to remain ambiguous and give a pause before carrying on. Instead of "Everyone make a dex save as he Fireballs the room." I say "He begins to cast a spell... ... ...A small red orb hurls toward the center of the room make dex saves." with my group knowing they are skipping their chance to Counterspell if they don't speak up in the pause. Everyone got 1 or, in the case of the chronically oblivious player, 2 times where I was lenient but reinforced that this change was in effect moving forward and now this is our normal. The only way they know what they are countering is if someone uses their reaction to identify the spell, from its components, and shouts it out.
Might not work for everyone but for my group this has done well at stopping Counterspell from feeling like it held too much sway, without adding complexity or removing functionality.
A simple addon.
I would maybe expand upon the solution where you get to have your action, BUT you only get to cast a spell level that is:
1) Your highest spell slot - Spell slot you just tried to cast = allowed spell slot level (or lower)
Or
2) Your max spell slot halved, and below, is the allowed spell slot level to cast
The explanation would be that you sunk in some magical energy for the initial spell, which got countered, and now you can only cast a lower level spell with the "remaining" magic
As a DM I just limit my counterspell allotment for my badguys.
Simple fix: the countered spell does not consume its components and does not waste the spell slot (since the spell didn't happen).
In game, it buys the players another turn as the enemy cannot be stopped forever
I think the duel mechanic needs drastic simplification:
Keep the change in turn order so an action is expended.
Declare a spell being expended for the energy to counter, add difference between spell level and 1 for same or opposite energy type.
Both sides roll skill check with countering having said offsets.
Winner gets their spell effect, tie nullifies, nat20 gets reflection.
I allow a Sleight of Hand or Deception Skill Check by a Caster contested by an Arcana Check by the caster to attempt to hide a spell’s components. If they cannot be detected then Counterspell cannot be cast. Arcane Tricksters are naturally better at hiding spell components because...well...they are tricky and can have Expertise in these skills. The Sorcerer’s Subtle Spell Metamagic also can make Counterspell more difficult.
XGTE also has variant rules for Arcana Checks that add more role-playing fun and flavorful.
It's a powerfull resource and a wild card on both sides.
I only believe that a 5th level caster, stoping a Lich's Power Word Kill would be a bit untrue.
For this, limiting the level is a important asset. 3rd level slots can cancel up until 6th level.
To cancel a 9th level spell, you have to cast counterspell as 6 level slot minimum (but you can never tell which spell is being casted).
If I were going to fix it and still make it simple, I would make it a spell that a wizard can only use as a ready action. That essentially negates the wizard's turn if the opposing spellcaster doesn't cast a spell. That's pretty harsh.
Another simple fix for this is to change counterspell to *require* it to be cast at the level of the spell being countered, and still require the Intelligence check to succeed.
If using Professor DM’s (Dungeon Craft channel) system wherein all spells require a check anyway, then you aren’t adding any additional roles, *plus* you have the fun inherent chance of making things worse with a failure, or a disaster on a natural 1.
That may weaken it too much, but then you could still be an abjurer if you want to be able to use it reliably.
The idea of a spell duel is very cool and interesting. You read about magical duels and see them in movies - but it does need to be simplified mechanically. Requiring multiple charts for reference is too much, and slows down combat.
If you are going to give up your next action in addition to using your reaction and the same level spell slot, then there should be more than a chance of countering.
Spellcasting ability check: DC = 10 + spell level
Using a simple ‘5-10 rule’ is easy to remember. (Success or failure has a scaling effect when you succeed or fail within 5, by 5+, or by 10+)
Success or Failure within 5 of the DC = targeted spell’s caster makes a check with advantage (failure) or disadvantage (success) to keep the spell, against your check. If that check is within 5 of yours, the spell energies clash and both casters engage in a spell duel (see below).
Success by 5+ = target spell immediately countered.
Failure by 5+ = immediate failure, targeted spell immediate takes effect
Success by 10+ (or nat. 20) = gain partial control (re-select area or target as the original caster, so cannot target the caster), or “you gain momentum” meaning you have advantage on your next spell check.
Failure by 10+ (or nat. 1) = disaster, your magic is absorbed and increases the spell. A simple result would be any save against that spell has disadvantage. Or the enemy caster gains “momentum” and has advantage on their next check.
Spell Duel: While engaged in a spell duel, a caster must use their action and spend a spell slot, or lose the duel. If you spend a spell slot you make another opposed check, and success or failure is determined by the same 5-10 rule above.
(Optionally: If the spell level you spend is higher than the last spell level the opposing caster spent, gain advantage, if it is lower you have disadvantage on your check).
Each turn you spend a spell slot, feel free to describe the thematics of your effect. Do you use a watery sphere to try to trap a fire spell? Freeze and shatter an opposing water effect? Do you create a being of light to banish darkness? Etc.
\
So I’m thinking this
Litch casts cone of cold
Wiz: counterspell
DM: roll off!
Each spell caster rolls a neglected d12 + spells atk + spell level
There’s a range of possible outcomes based on the result ranging from double damage to reg damage or countered to reflected
This really comes across as you saying that risk versus reward mechanics shouldn't exist in combat. Counterspell is exactly that. I guarantee that you'd hate the war magic tradition for wizards since that is a huge gimmick to how they play. There's nothing wrong with Counterspell and it's effectiveness is just being blown out of proportion. A 60 ft range, you have to see the casting of a spell AND a roll of the dice so it isn't automatic. Counterspell is fine.
On the contrary I want more risk and reward in combat. I want you to risk plenty for a good outcome. I just want the dice roll to be the adjudicator on the success or not.
None of this is something I see in need of changing Counterspell. However, my prob with counterspell is that it feels like a must have on any character that can cast it. Like if a wizard doesnt take it at level 5 it is like a cleric not taking revivify. :/
IMHO counter spell is fine, because you can't counter spell a dragon. It's very situational for caster vs caster conflict and, like, 90% of my encounters aren't against casters.
I had bigger problems with healing word and I still have a huge problem with animate objects on ball bearings or caltrops being OP as crab...
Just, let it be.
I would use the action option for counter spell, where you don’t lose an action when your spell gets countered. However, I’d add this one extra detail. You can’t cast anything other than a cantrip for your action, but the countered spell does not count towards your one spell used for your turn. That way you can potentially use a good combination as back up with your cantrip and bonus action spell. Thus, casting counter spell has more weight to it. Do you cancel the spell and in turn have the opponent use an unknown combo of spells, as well as have that person realize that you have counter spell, so they can better optimize their plans for it? I think that would add a neat spice to the spell
The biggest problem stems from how it is used.
A player who chooses Counterspell sacrifices an otherwise useful spell in the chance that a spellcaster will fight them.
While it varies setting to setting, the monster manual doesn't contain a huge number of spellcasting monsters to make this the most worthwhile spell ever, but just enough to make it really good in those situations.
Now, a player choosing this spell as a tactical decision vs a monster using it, in which there will nearly always be a spell to counterspell. Furthermore, monsters that can cast spells without expending spell slots are a thing, which makes the player's only advantage with counterspell the action economy side.
Mhm, maybe there is a way of simplifying Spell Duel. Maybe something like this:
Counterspell is a Cantrip available from level one that can be cast as a reaction.
If it is cast, the caster has to choose a spell he has prepared or (for non wizards) he knows. He then tries to counter the enemies spell with the chosen spell. This uses a Spell slot at the original level of the chosen spell (i. E. 3rd level for Fireball). The DM interprets the result.
If 'Dispel magic' is chosen, you have to role an Arcane check against 10 + the countered spells level. On a success, the enemy spell fails.
--> This limits counter spell in the way you have spells known/prepared and also demands (and rewards) player creativity. It also makes for really cool moments when a Lichs Cone of Cold is stopped by a Wall of Fire. And it's still simple enough to fit with 5Es design imo
My solution:
Dispel Magic works to "stop" any SINGLE TARGET spell the bad guys is sending my (or a teammate's) way. Standard rules for dispelling magic would apply. I would have to be aware of the attack (looking the right way, can see he/she/it is casting, whatevs). Greater Dispel Magic would be used to stop ANY spell cast my way (within range of course). Standard dispelling rules apply. Alternatively, I have allowed my casters to use a spell SLOT of the SAME caster level as the incoming attack to NEGATE their spell (much more friendly as it can be a simple level 1 or 2 spell coming your way, why use Greater Dispel Magic on that).
EITHER way used would chew up my turn. PERIOD. It was the cost of canceling out the other spell. I do NOT shift in the Initiative order. Why would I? That was already resolved at the start of combat. For those complaining about how "fair" it is because you could be facing a LOT of casters, yeah, that's the point. You should NOT win this fight if a dozen decent casters are slinging spells your way and its you and a cleric defending the whole team of fighters, rogues, and barbarians. I could HAPPILY get with the concept of spell vs spell combat though. A cleric tries to cast Inflict light wounds, I counter with either inflict or cure lt wounds and it stops him/her hurting me or my teammate INSTANTLY. No damage to roll or compare, it just fizzled out because I negated it. As a REALLY hard option, you (as DM) could come up with a LIST of spells that would ACT as DISPEL MAGIC, COUNTERSPELL, or GREATER DISPEL MAGIC (etc.) to give your players. THEN, I would have any caster TRYING to cancel the incoming spell do a Knowledge ARCANA or whatevs I deem appropriate to KNOW what kind of spell is coming so they can instantly negate it with their spell.
If a spell has an action time of 1 action you can counter it by casting the same spell and roll once an abillity check.The higher one wins. If you want to counter a consetration spell you cast the same spell and roll 3 abillity checks. If you win 3 times (1 check/ turn) you counter the spell and you might dmg the opponent if it is an offensive spell. In case of a tie roll a wild magic table.
So let me start by saying I think your 5e-ized spell duel system has merit as a variant rule. That said, I'll restate this for the umpteenth time since everyone's apparently making the same video back-to-back right now...
I really hate this argument with counterspell. Frankly, it's not only a perfectly fine spell, but it's also a self-correcting situation.
1. Counterspell uses your reaction. Press the caster to consider if it's worth it (ie - do I need to save for Shield, Absorb Elements, etc.) and remember that once they've counterspelled one spell they can't hit another this round.
2. Counterspell cannot apply if you can't see the spell being cast, including metamagic subtle spells and psionics. Utilize this.
3. Feel free to run out your spell slots countering spells. Each of those is a potential spell you're not casting. Wanna counter my counter? Cool, now your side's out 2 for my 1.
4. If you don't know a spell (in your spellbook/spells known) I'd argue you don't know what those chants and wiggles do other than saying it's probably a spell of some sort. This is where many people implement arcana or religion checks. In my games you can feel free to counter that spell, but you likely have no idea if that's a poison spray cantrip or a finger of death. What's more, lacking this knowledge you may attempt to counter a more powerful spell only to have your counter fail, wasting your reaction AND spell slot.
5. You also can't counter contingencies or some magic items.
6. Barbarians with mauls are also not counterspellable. Have fun, Squishy the grey!
I think this is an interesting and innovative approach to the issue! Definitely an "opt-in" situation. I would be baffled as a player to just see these tables come out of nowhere lol but I personally love them.
I don’t think it’s that bad. I like it as is quite a lot. If used correctly it makes the stakes even higher for the players. Especially if the bbeg is a high arcanist wizard. It could be like pathfinders version of you want it to. In that you make a check based on 10+the level of the spell. If you beat it the spell is canceled. You loose, your hit.
I would probably change regular *counterspell* to a concentration check, but make a 6th- or 7th-level spell of *greater counterspell* that works as the regular *counterspell.*
I like the idea where arcane counterspell only affects other arcane spellcasters. I would add this though: except for Abjurers. Who learn the version we all hate, and their counterspell isnt immune from divine casters, as abjurers are meant to block all magic. Its their specialty.
i will tell you the same i said to chappy and so many other people about it. I love it!
both as a DM and as a PLAYER)
i played a lot of casters, and everytime i can i take counterspell, (even as a bard secret for lvl 6 lore bards)
after the painful firsts levels, casters characters are a lot more powerful than non casters ones. and counterspell is one of the few things that do balance that. ( in a weird way)
when there is no spell caster on one of the sides, the side with a spell caster has a lot of extra benefits. (LOTS) but they are "balanced" with the "slot" mechanic. a fighter would never do as much damage in one round than a well placed high level spell. it's simple imposible. but they are reliable but a caster who burns their slots is almost useless.
Having counterspell is the way for a fight between casters to drain their power. and yes.. the caster with more and higher spell slots wins :P and that's RIGHT.. that's cool low level spells (1-3) should be easily countered by a seasoned wizard.. and high level spells haver risk or consumes more powerful magic to dispel them.
i think is a good and cool mechanic that is correctly balanced and it's a good way to represent a wizard duel. and no.. i don't think an archimage could "fail" to counter an apprentice spell like magic scorching ray. but i could picture any wizard struggling to maintain a few rounds of duel because of they have drained all their power. using counterspell, requires at least, a lvl 3 slots. ( not cheap) and your reaction, ( not cheap) it's a drainer. and should be powerful because of that.
using things like magic duel, makes every other player stay waiting a few minutes until you resolve your turn :P and is a minigame for just one of your players.. i just can't agree with that.
"using things like magic duel, makes every other player stay waiting a few minutes until you resolve your turn :P and is a minigame for just one of your players.. i just can't agree with that."
I don't agree with that statement. The table already waits while each other player takes their turn, how is a spell duel any different? If a DM using this spell duel knew the rules (and arguably a DM would) it shouldn't last very long to have the wizard say "I counter" quick spell duel, and applying the results. The Wizard technically gave up his entire turn to counter, so when it comes back to him we move on to the next in initiative order. The Wizard's normal turn of moving casting a spell etc was already used. Combat wouldn't slow down that much.
@@Jorphdan maybe that's true. i need to see it in action, before answering that ;) (lots of things that seams straight forward takes lots of time and things that looks like time consuming aren't that much :P so... i don't know)
anyhow.. if that work for your table...enjoy!
I figure the concentration check roll would be just the right level of complex for 5e. It could even be set up so that if you cast counterspell at a lower level than the spell being cast the check is rolled at advantage, if you cast at the same level the roll is neutral, and if you counter with a higher spell slot the check is rolled at disadvantage.
This convoluted wizard duel would be cool as some encounter that was meant as a challenge for the spellcaster, but during combat against every counterspell it is just going to stop the flow of combat too much. I don't see a problem with the current counterspell effect and see it as less of a halt on combat than an entirely different minigame.
Here's my take: counterspell is somewhat overpowered but it is somewhat necessary, especially late game when spells have insane damage output or even kills your character with absolutely no save. Sure, it may be annoying when you are counterspelled, but realise that your team (so long as they have an caster that can learn it which is actually really common) can do the same. Imagine, you're a wizard in a late game encounter where countespell doesn't exist, you roll bad on initiative so you go last. The damage dealer on the opposite team strikes you for 30 points of damage, next up is an enemy wizard and he casts power word kill, you are now dead with no save and couldn't do anything to even attempt to save yourself. With counterspell you could attempt to counter it, you probably wouldn't even know what spell he is casting and would have to roll for it, having to roll pretty damn high to counter it.
My only problem with Counter spell is that a 3rd level spell slot can stop a wish or similar 9th level via a check. The DCs are a bit to low, perhaps 15 + spells level so 24 for 9th
Counterspell as it is in 5e is just fine. If the npc is in range to counterspell they are in range to be counterspelled. It is also not possible to know what the spell that is being cast is before you announce you want to counterspell it and at what level unless the spell is obviously recognizable to the character. Here is what I do in 5e if I have a person with counterspell in the party. I will have already had a talk with them about how to announce counterspell. I will describe the npc casting and only state the spell that is being cast if it is a spell that player would be familiar with either by knowing it themselves or having seen it cast many times around them, and then look at the player. They now have a very short time (about 5 seconds) to say they counterspell and then announce a level or they miss out on that and the spell goes off. My NPC's are also treated the same. I usually look at my NPC's list of known spells and pick some that would be very detrimental if used against them and if they see a player casting one of them they counterspell if they have a reaction available. If they have regular associates about them that have other spells they do not have I will pick a few of those out that would be detrimental and mark them as familiar and they become counterspell targets. There are also situational counterspell triggers that trigger a counterspell from an NPC due to a tactical shift. Things like the party starts to gather after the tide of battle turns against them and they have gotten close enough together to try and leave via magic means then a counterspell will fly at the first spell that is either known and is a teleport spell or the first unknown spell cast by anyone who might have some form of teleportation magics available to them. Another trigger would be if the melee are scattering and it looks like they are just trying to clear the area before a large ae comes out the NPC will counter the first spell from any of the premier ae classes like wizards and sorcerer etc unless the spell is known to the NPC and is not the expected ae attack.
Without counterspell you can really only kill a higher level caster npc that is played intelligently when you get lucky and drop them before they decide to live to fight another day and dimension door, arcane gate, planeshift, Gate, teleport, word of recall, transport via plants etc. and get the hell out of Dodge. Players need to learn to play tactically so they can try and use counterspell to its fullest while trying to protect themselves from it as much as they can. Dm's need to learn how to use it correctly and effectively just like any npc would in the world you are campaigning in while trying to protect from it like the npc would when needed.
They only thing that people can say negative about counterspell that I think has any merit at all is that it is not much fun to have your great spell moment counterspelled. It is not. However when you counterspell a vital spell from the villain it can be oh so sweet. It is also not fun to get meteor swarmed but is oh so fun to do it to the bad guys.
There was a video linked to a counterspell compilation from Critical Role. You say watch the first 5 minutes and talked about how it can pull the brake on the momentum of the game. Nothing about counterspell did anything like that in those 5 minutes. In fact it kept the momentum going as it stopped multiple encounter ending full momentum stopping teleports from happening and thus kept the suspense and thrill of the fight going while every person at that table looked pleased as punch when those moments happened and brought those encounters to an actual resolution. Without counterspell encounters with any caster high enough to cast transportation spells just will not end unless the pc's get lucky or the DM played that particular caster like an idiot and chooses to fight to the death instead of getting out while the getting is good. If I sat at a table as a player and the party was taking on a high level caster and that caster did not try and teleport away at the point when they are obviously going to lose I would seriously have my doubts about that DM and how they handle their npc's from a tactical viewpoint. There is no logic in the npc just standing there nearly dead and casting another finger of death at one of the many party members still up and about to slaughter him and sealing their own fate instead of using that same action to save their life and teleport away.
DM who banned counterspell: the enemy wizard casts Magic Missile at 7th level at you!
Player: I cast shield.
DM: :0
DM: >:0
As a person who loves to play wizards, Counterspell feels like is is in the best place it has been, the thing is that the reaction you are using on your turn only cancels out their standard action, and only if you hadnt cast a non cantrip in your previous turn, and even if you counter your opponents spells, there are still plenty of damage scaling cantrips they can quicken fire off at the enemy izard who countered their spell.
not to mention there is no actual mechanic written down for a spellcaster to recognize a spell in combat, so a DM could rule that you cant know what spell it is until it has happened, and you dont know how to make a good exchange of spell slots, burning a 6th level to take out their 3rd level spell. a mage duel between two arcane casters is a war of attrition that is happening on top of the actual combat, but doesnt nessecarily have anything to do with it.
ANY change to counterspell is a big nerf to abjurers.
One alteration that I'm considering is fairly simple: counterspell forces a contested ability check. Its like a "spell grapple". Each caster rolls 1d20 + their spellcasting ability + the level of the spell being cast (so 3 for the counterspell unless its upcast) with the highest winning. Lvl 10 abjurers get to add their proficiency as usual, making them the best counterspellers on the block - but still not making it a guarantee by a long shot. You can still counterspell a counterspell, but that just gives you an additional roll - with the abjurer getting his proficiency bonus again, meaning that "the caster always wins if he has the slots" is no longer true, and at least partially making up for the fact that the original counterspell is not automatic.
A MUCH simpler solution would be to make every counterspell require a check. You could use the existing formula, but it's a little unbalanced. A check using your spell attack modifier + your spell's level vs their spell DC + their spell's level would be fairer and pretty simple to calculate (math examples below).
Assume a 7th level wizard with a +4 ability modifier is facing a 20th level wizard with a +6 modifier. Currently, if the level 7 wizard casts counterspell (with a +4), there's a 55% chance of countering a 4th level spell (DC 14) and a 30% chance to counter a 9th level spell (DC 19), which is absurdly high for using just a 3rd level spell. With my proposed formula, the 7th level wizard would get +10 (7+3) and would have a 25% chance of countering a 4th level spell (DC 26), a 5% chance of countering an 8th level spell (DC 30), and a 0% chance of countering a 9th (DC 31). They could, however, increase their odds by 5% by casting counterspell using a 4th level slot, thus giving them a slim chance (5%) to counter a 9th level spell. The level 20 wizard, on the other hand, currently has a 65% chance of countering a 4th level spell (DC 14) and a 40% chance to counter a 9th level spell (DC 19). But with the proposed formula, the 20th level wizard has a +15 modifier (12+3), which gives them a 90% chance to counter the opponents 1st level spell (DC 18), a 80% chance to counter their 3rd level spell (DC 20), a 75% chance to counter a 4th level spell (DC 21), and a 50% chance of countering a 9th level spell (not that they could cast one). Every higher spell slot would increase these odd by 5%, to a max of +30% at 9th level.
Now assume the combatants are more equal, with that same 7th level wizard vs a 9th level wizard with a +5 ability modifier. With the new formula, the 7th level wizard would have a 55% chance to counter a 1st level spell (DC 20), a 40% chance to counter a 4th level spell (DC 23), and a 35% chance to counter a 5th (DC 24). The more powerful wizard, however, would have a +12 counterspell modifier (9+3) and would have a 75% chance to counter a 1st level spell (DC 18) and a 60% chance to counter a 4th level spell (DC 21).
Let me Freestyle DM for a few seconds ...... How about ...
"When a Player wants to use Counterspell, the DM assigns an Arcana Check, DC = (8+spell level), and if successful, the Player knows what level of spell is being cast. The Player may choose what level of Counterspell to employ to defeat that spell, if the Player has access to higher spell slots. If unsuccessful, the Player has no idea what level of spell is being cast."
This changes the premise of the discussion, making it more about Roleplaying. Does your Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, or College of Lore Bard, spend that spell slot to stop a spell, or hold it to cast their own spell on their turn? Also, if the Arcana Check is a Natural 20, or the total is 10 points above the required DC number, the Player knows what spell is being cast.
Also, how come Trickery Domain Clerics don't get it? I think I would house rule that myself.
Personally, the 'your spell is countered, but you still have your action and can cast a cantrip" option is my personal favorite. The make a concentration check one is my second, but it should be a second opposed roll, perhaps even with consequences to the caster of counterspell if they are beat by too much...
Mechanically I don't a problem with Counterspell for the most part it is a balanced mechanic. I think it takes away more fun from the game then it adds. There are definitely times when as a PC it is a great feeling to stop an NPC's spellcasting. But in general it feels like what it is an obstruction mechanic. You know what's more fun then doing nothing? Anything! I'm joking of course but I think even spells being used against the PC can increase their enjoyment of the game.
Which is the more interesting scenario?
NPC Wizard: Casts Hold Person at the Cleric.
PC Cleric: Oh no I rolled a 1.
PC Fighter: I go full Action Surge on that Wizard hoping they fail their concentration checks.
PC Bard: I cast Bardic Inspiration on the Cleric so they get a bonus on the follow up save.
PC Wizard: Two can play at that game. I cast Hold Person at the Wizard.
Or
NPC Wizard: Casts Hold Person at the Cleric.
PC Wizard: Counterspell; automatic success because 2nd level spell.
PC Fighter: Regular melee attack Wizard; it's just a puny wizard anyway and it's not like they can cast a dangerous spell.
PC Bard: I cast Vicious Mockery at the Wizard; a bit more damage on the pile.
PC Cleric: Melee attack; this wizard can't survive this for long and I don't want to bother wasting spells on such an easy encounter.
PC Wizard: Maybe a quick Firebolt or Magic Missile spell; this wizard is toast.
Now obviously this is just one scenario I've come up with quickly and there can be a lot of different choices that can be made to make things more interesting. In general my point is Counterspell is designed to negate actions which inherently means there are less interesting actions happening in the game. That's my two cents anyway. :)
During your turn you can cast one level spell.
Counterspell is not cast on your turn its captive during the round therefore it doesn't count.
This is a very misunderstood rule.
Great video and good ideas there my friend... let me add an additional solution to the list that stays with the 'rule of cool', is way faster than the 'spell duel' mechanic and keeps things pretty much as they are.
"The wizard wishing to cast counterspell must make an 'ARCANA check' for ALL spells regardless of level (replacing the 'ability check mechanic described RAW). the DC is the spell save DC of the caster to be countered, +1 for each level past third (A forth level spell would add +1, a fifth level spell would be +2, etc). The wizard needs to see if they can correctly identify what spell is being cast and do it fast enough to use the 'correct; version of counterspell before the other wizard completes their spell.
Furthermore, add an additional +5 modifier to the DC for 'divine magic' due to a wizard's unfamiliarity with that sort of spell casting.. The DC is further modified for the speed of the spell being cast. Quicker spells are actually EASIER to counter. A reaction spell is +0, a bonus action spell is +1 and a full turn spell is +2."
I think that addresses every point you made about the problems with counterspell, keeps things simple and within the core rules of 5E, and doesn't go too far off the rails from the RAW spell description.
Counterspell has a 60 foot range, this is something every competent spellcaster should know. Stepping outside a 60 ft radius of a target before casting your big spells should be standard operating procedure in wizarding duels in dnd. Want to cast fireball? Okay step 60 feet away and toss the fireball exactly 60 feet towards target, the balls range of effect then blooms outward a few feet more to hit the target without the opertunity to be countered. I imagine this is taught at every "evocation 101" course in faerun.
Simpler solution - let's Counterspell use Action part of future wizard turn, and leave his/her Reaction for other things.
Simple, fast, elegant, and Counterspell = Action this way.
If the one possible use of counter spell a turn upends and stall everything that you worked for as a DM then try two casters. It's simple and makes the wizard/bard/etc rethink their tactics and positioning. Yes it still ends the turn with nothing else to do, but that is part of being a caster. Having two casters would force then to have to choose which enemy to counter. It's the same in the canonical novels in the D&D story. Wizard gets countered, runs for a new position and starts a new spell. You could also have the wizard get focused and have to use their reaction before you cast a spell, then you have no worries.
Now maybe you would want to run a wild magic or Spell Plague campaign. The use of that spell battle chart then seems like viable solution. But magic in 5E is reliable and consistent. It's part of a long standing and on going history.
I have a lot of unasked for thoughts on this and I hope you don’t take this as me trying to pick a fight.
1. The idea of counterspell needing to go because of the cost of losing 1 action to 1 reaction is odd to me because of how many different spells and abilities effectively do this as well. Example: shield and duelist feat. While multi attack is prevalent on certain npcs and characters (extra attack) the higher level you go, often it’s used when the action economy would create a similar effect and at a lower spell level cost to do so.
2. The cost of one reaction is sort of reductive to me. You also lose powerful spell slots, which don’t seem like much at higher levels but every counterspell is a hypnotic pattern (take away a LOT of actions potentially at the cost of one action) not cast.
3. If the enemy wants to spend their time and slots making the party Wizard feel like a dud, I see that as not too different from the flying enemy and the party barbarian. I feel most classes have a counter out there for their abilities.
4. Counter spelling enemies are easily surmountable in a party with multiple spellcasters (Wizard and cleric example). One has their finger of death taken down, while the other then swings with a high level party buff. The party often has action economy on their side, so taking out the wizards one spell is using the one reaction that enemy gets to take care of about 1/4th of the total enemy forces ability to respond.
I dunno. Overall I think it sucks to have a counter spelling enemy but I also think it’s a great way to break the mold of caster supremacy and helps to balance play across all the classes. But that’s just my experience with the spell.
I don't have any other way than just putting "you're wrong", and what a lot of people get wrong when it comes to counterspell. CS reaction works in response to a trigger of a spell attempt of an enemy caster.
"Counterspell: You attempt to interrupt a creature IN THE PROCESS OF CASTING a spell..." You don't know what the caster is casting. So when the enemy casts his fireball, it's already too late to counter it, because the spell has already been cast.
Any DM and player need to start their action with "i attempt to cast a spell" giving the opposing player to react, if they choose not to, then your cast is completed.
I was with you until the spell duel rules. I have six to eight players at my table. There is zero way I could bog down combat like that.
I believe it’s fine as it is
It does auto-succeed in certain circumstances but if the spell level of the slot of the spell being cast is higher than the slot counter spell was cast at then it’s a check. It’s only when counterspell is cast at the same level or higher it succeeds automatically.
A disrupt magic spell to use a reaction forcing a concentration check is a great idea but counterspell is still essential to high level play when you need to roll a 14 or higher on a d20 to stop power word kill or other crazy spells. Maybe something like what Critical role does where they can cast two spells but one has to be of 2nd or lower and only one as an action and another as bonus action can make a turn worthwhile. On top of that make it so counterspell uses up the reaction and one of those 2 spells next turn. Then it becomes an action economy spell battle and more about well prepared supplementary spells. The disrupt magic spell could be a 2nd level bonus action and/or reaction option and then just keep counterspell as the reaction that takes the reaction+bonus or reaction+action cost instead. Great for a pinch but terrible should it be a waste. Could also add a caster ability to bolster important spells by dumping 2 spell slots into it to increase the roll required to counter but the added spell slot is limited to 3rd and under. So Anyone could cast chain lightning at 6th announce an added slot like a 3rd and a counterspell at 6th from a snarky opponent can be surprised by it not auto succeeding then needing to roll to beat a 19. Optional but if you think this is too OP for someone to have to roll a a 22 for a 9th level or not be able to auto counter with their own 9th then you could rule that counter at 9th auto succeeds and that boosting a spell above 6th costs 2 extra slots for the effect of one. So power word kill costing a 9th then adding 2 3rd level slots for it to be 22 to counter meaning probably a 17 or higher on the d20. Same for forcecage at 7th needing 2 1sts, 2nds or 3rds to be 18 19 or 20 on the counter DC. Another alternative is to have it cost a spell slot but only have half effectiveness rounded down up to 6th level expenditures. So 1st levels can't be used and 2nd levels only boost the DC by 1 3rd also add only 1 and 4th adds 2 up to 6th for 3. Just Ideas to make it possible to counter counterspell and also make every counterspell or related ability cost that much more. Same for dispell magic. Boost a spell to raise the DC.