I really wish they would add a new casting rule: "the sum of spells cast on your turn and after that turn (as a reaction), cannot exceed the level of the highest level spell that you can cast. This would resolve the action surge issue without having to change the action surge feature. It would also close up a balance loophole created by reaction spells, allowing you to create more reaction spells and features. You would also have to balance offense vs defense as a caster, because you would be thinking "what kind of spell is he throwing next turn, and what spell would I counter it with?" You could give a spell 3 semi-niche effects or add more as it upcasts. This opens up 2014 counterspell as a high-level counter, so that they have to sacrifice their casting on their turn to "save up power" to perform a counterspell. Maybe they could turn it into a Compelled Duel situation (1 minute duration w/o concentration) and let them power struggle for it, but only if they sacrifice casting power each turn to keep participating in the duel. I also wish that they split up the game role of counterspell into a suite of spells that allow the schools of magic to react to various threats uniquely, rather than boiling wizard duels down to "I cast counterspell". Maybe illusion blocks line if sight by creating a number of obstacles to hide behind, preventing several effects from activating. Maybe you bruefly polymorph your body to avoid or tank a spell. Maybe you get 10 feet of movement and can make a forceshield that blocks blast spells (dex saves) when people are nearby, or maybe grants half or full cover to people nearby you. Maybe you necromantically steal health from an enemy while being damaged, like a darker Hellish Rebuke. There are several ways this could be adapted to the schools of magic, at different spell levels, and for the primal, divine, and arcane themes.
Another way this change makes Sorcerers better (if I'm not mistaken) is that because you are now stopping the spell from being cast at all (rather than negating the effects) you can now use quicken spell to get that same spell off in the same turn.
There is also the Great Old One Pact, their level 10 has a feature that gives them Hex as an always prepared spell, and a boost to the Hex spell so that it also grants Disadvantage to saving throws with the ability score selected, Bane was also added to the Warlock spell list, and that is another spell that could interact with the new Counterspell.
I also didn't anticipate so many comments on the first video and community post being so tied to Blue MtG players. Like I know Counterspell is a blue spell, but I'm confused what that had to do with the Unearthed Arcana
If I had to hazard a guess, it’s the idea that counterspells in both DnD and MtG “feel” bad even though they are just a different form of interaction and control. In MtG you can play a massive creature and it gets removed, or in DnD you can start your rage as a barbarian before getting stunned, and both effectively “counter” the plan that you had in place. The difference is that a counterspell doesn’t let your plan even start. My own personal thought is that counterspells are a part of the game just like any other. While other ways of stopping plans your opponent/party put into place happen after the plan is put into place and some damage has been done, you have the benefit of knowing more information and not wasting your answer to their plan on something not as powerful. Counterspell, while more powerful as it prevents it from ever beginning, comes with the cost of less information. It is easily baited out or you can force their resources (mana or reaction) on something else before the counterspell has something good to target. The short story is, people don’t know how to play around counterspells and don’t want to learn
The problem I have with the original Counterspell was that it was ubiquitous. You Had to take it if it was accessible to you. If you don't take it then you aren't interacting with spellcasting as powerfully as you could be. Powerful monsters typically have powerful spellcasting. If you Don't take counterspell you are helpless against those monsters. If you Do take counterspell you are down a spell known/prepared. If you you Use counterspell you are very Quickly burning through your spell resources. You are also very quickly burning your opponent's resources, and typically the party has more resources than the dm. The party Only Has more resources than the DM when counterspelling if multiple of your allies Also forgo spells known/prepared for counterspell. This new Counterspell is still very Important, but you don't Need to take it becuase it's not quite as powerful as it once was. Additionally: I think it Should be very very difficult to counter a spell cast by a sorcerer. Just like how I enjoy the sorcerer being able to boost their own spell DC. It's on flavor for the sorcerer to be more innately good at what niche of magic they can explore.
i am super happy with this change to counter spell. as a dm i hate the feeling of making my Player's lose a spell slot, now i can un abashedly put it on all my guards.
TreantMonk did a good analysis of this change to counterspell. I agree with him and I consider it a mistake to simply turn our noses at this just because it’s a nerf, especially without playtesting.
The shift they made doesn't focus on the spell being cast it focuses on the caster themselves. So the spell level doesn't need to be taken into account anymore
So as far as i can tell and i am sure i missed some, now that it is a saving throw things that would affect coutnerspell, and i don't think this is an exhaustive list either and some of these already affected counterspell as they where ability checks. I didn't look through monster features but like legendary resistance i am sure there are a couple 5e Features Exhaustion level 3 Race Features Halfling - Lucky Hobgoblin - Fortune fromt he Many Satyr - Magic Resistance Yuan-ti - Magic Resistance Class Features Bard - Bardic Inspiration/Cutting Words Paladin - Paladin Aura Wizard - War Wizard Arcane Deflection/Transmution Wizard Transmuter Stone for Proficiency in Con Saves/Abjuration Spell Resistance/Divination Portent/Chronurgy Chronal Shift Sorcerer - Heightened Spell/Divine Soul Favored by the Gods/Clockwork Soul Restore Balance and Trance of Order/Wild Magic Bend Luck/Shadow Magic Hound of Ill Omens Druid - Circle of Stars Cosmic Omen Weal and Woe Fighter - Indomitable/Rune Knight Frost Rune Rogue - Arcane Trickster Spell Thief Spells Resistance Bane Bless Hex (Warlock Eldrich Hex) Silvery Barbs Bestow Curse - Choose CON for disadvantage Contagion - Slimy Doom Feeblemind Antimagic Field Foresight Items Amulet of Health Ioun Stone of Fortitude Ring of Protection Cloak of Protection Manual of Bodily Health Robe of Stars Luck Blade Luckstone Staff of Power Blackstaff Robe of the Archmagi Feats Bountiful Luck Resilient Luck Feat Metamagic Adept (To pick up Heightened Spell) Mage Slayer Stat Feats Mainly for CON (These are much less impactful, but who knows they could be useful) ASI Durable Tavern Brawler Dragon Fear Dragon Hide Dwarven Fortitude Infernal Constitution Orcish Fury Second Chance
@@bradleyhurley6755 Personally, I never have. While I understand the comparison, they're definitely not 1 to 1 since X/day spells are cast at a fixed level.
First, I think the meta of DnD shifting is generally a good thing, especially when it comes to powerful spells. Things like Forcecage, Wall of Force, Conjure Animals, and I'd lump Counterspell in there being touched is a positive direction overall for the design of the next version of dnd. If we vote to say that we generally like the changes to this Counterspell the more likely we'll see more changes to spells that need to be brought in line. Also from the vod with Jeremy the main reason they said that Counterspell was too good, again in keeping with the above design philosophy. Allowing Counterspell to change also frees up design space for more powerful magic to maybe remove magic, or magical properties from opponents. Something like Disjunction, which can take the role of what Counterspell used to do, and would be a less powerful version of Antimagic. Now all that said, important questions like should Counterspell key off Constitution? Why not something like Wisdom? Generally only good on caster characters that can't also Counterspell, Druids & Clerics, and breaks up some of the power we see in the Constitution stat. It'll also make it less easy to save against for more powerful creature. Or if you want to keep it Con, why not allow an upcasting factor to increase the saving throw of the spell? Finally, 100% the intent for Counterspell that the WoTC vod states is, "a 3rd level spell shouldn't remove a powerful ability, only delay it instead." With that in mind, Monster abilities that can be countered should equally be immune to it. The times in which you could counter and it should also burn the resource seems to be things like items. Wands, rods, staves, and scrolls, these things should be used up but not the creatures innate powers. This needs to be better worded either in the new monster designs that will eventually come out, or in a fall up statement whether it should apply to monster abilities that casts spells without slots. So Counterspell changes Imo, is a good step, and needs potentially some changes to finalize the design and create clearer wording about the intent to some of its new features.
I have always felt Counterspell should be an opposed Arcana skill check. Whichever caster has more skill and/or experience should be more likely to get the favorable result.
Also, RAW it looks like the new Counterspell wastes creatures' daily uses of spells, warlocks' Mystic Arcanums, and the daily free casts of racial spells and feat spells.
I think it really needed a nerf, and given the core function of it, people will still pick it! It is still something you want in your arsenal, but it is crazy now to think of some party members not having it even though they technically could. It is now in a place where you very rarely, but still sometimes, might not pick it. Honestly, it is almost still a bit much of a must pick just because of the fundamental potential of the spell. Delaying a Fireball on your entire party, a Forcecage, Wall of Force etc is still HUGE! If you have a 5 round combat and you trade all your reactions for the entire combat to negate 1 whole turn of the big bad, then those are quite well spent imo. Obviously it also costs a bunch of spell slots which makes it a bit poor. However, find a way to impose disadvantage on the saving throw and you will have a lot more success. Regarding Legendary Resistance. Anything which allows you to burn it using your Reaction is great in my book. Regarding burning spell slots. Since the Spell Slots are burned whenever you Ready a Spell even though you never cast it, the same should be for stopping a counter spell. It can go either way, but keep it consistent because now they have inconsistent rules. Especially after Jeremy presented the reasoning which is directly in opposition to their current rules.
I'll say that I like the new Counterspell. Feels balanced to me, especially as a DM. I can never use Counterspell as a DM because it's cruel. But making it a roll that my player have to make to get that healing spell to work adds to the game, not takes away from it. Two things should change, though: it should automatically succeed against a cantrip, and there should be *some* upcast mechanic. It would feel stupid to cast against a cantrip (especially with the blind spell technique some tables use) and have it fail. Also, a lot of those "at will" spells in the new monster design would be great to just stop in their tracks. And I don't know what the upcast feature should look like, but it should be something. A cumulative negative to their check per spell slot, maybe, but it needs to be *something*.
For me new Counterspell is a way to let monsters use it against players. The old version was kinda frustration for players - they lose action, spell slot and can't do anything to prevent it (only to counterspell it again). In new version players can now cast a Wish and not be afraid to be countered and lose precious 9 level spellslot. But I still think that it need some tweeks with leveled spell version. Like add the difference between spell level to saving throw
But if you were a bad guy wizard, and you saw your foe about to cast WISH - you would want to counter it because that’s about to end your life. You SHOULD be afraid to be countered when facing an enemy spellcaster.
There are plenty of ways to play around the current version of Counterspell. You can outrange it as it only has a 60ft range. You can use full cover or heavy obscurity so the aspiring Counterspeller can't see you. You can also ready spells outside of Counterspell range or behind cover and then step out and release them. You can make your spells not have components using Subtle Spell or Aberrant Mind's psionic sorcery. And then, as you pointed out, the tried and true "I Counterspell your Counterspell." It is definitely a player skill issue if they can't find ways around Counterspell. There is no reason Counterspell needs to be a Con saving throw. And adding a built in failure condition is like adding tripping into Smash Bros.
@@jeffreybond5796 But that is not new mechanic. Why not remove saving throws on all spells? Sounds crazy! So why remove it on Counterspell?) I love concept of trying to remain concentraition via con saving throw, that Jeremy Crowford pointed out. But thats theory. I'll try to playtest the new version
@@AunShiLord Not all spells have saving throws or attack rolls as it is anyways. Magic Missile always hits, even though it is targeting a creature (and it's only counter is one specific spell, just like Counterspell). Sleep, Color Spray, Alarm, Wall of Force, Maze, Cloud of Daggers, Hex, Hunter's Mark, Heat Metal, Spike Growth, etc, etc all don't give saving throws. Also, the current version of Counterspell is really targeting the spell the creature is casting and not the creature itself, so it makes sense that it wouldn't have a saving throw (because spells and the weave can't make saving throws). The object that gets catapulted by the Catapult spell doesn't get a save, for instance, because it's not a creature. And of course I think it's fine to playtest the new version, I just think it's also important to fully understand the context of both versions. Misunderstanding the current Counterspell might make you think it's more powerful than it actually is.
in my games my DM has always said what the spell an enemy is casting regardless of if they know someone has counterspell prepared because they've seen it as fair considering it's expected that players say what spell they're casting to the DM
In my games automatically told players what the spell if its one they could cast (had access to). Otherwise if they ask they get a free arcana check with the dc being 10 plus the level of the spell.
@@henrymalinowski5125If you are a 10th level or higher Great Old One warlock, your Eldritch Hex feature gives them disadvantage on saving throws tied to the selected ability score. Edit: Basically a specific warlock can really make you vulnerable to the new Counterspell.
I like the changes to Counterspell and Abjuration wizards, but I would suggest two changes: 1) Upcasting Counterspell increases the DC of the save by 1 for each level you upcast by. 2) Abjuration should let you cast Counterspell once a round as a free action
This change will be a nerf for Sorcerers, not a buff. Sorcerers were already the best at using Counterspell because of Subtle Spell Metamagic. Subtle meant that an enemy caster couldn't possibly Counterspell your Counterspell, so there was a 0% chance of counterplay once you cast Counterspell. You could 100% shut down any spell of 3rd level or lower. And the Tasha's feature Magical Guidance already let them reroll a failed ability check if they were trying to counter a higher level spell. Switching to the new version would be a significant downgrade for them in many respects. Enemies with very high Con saves will still have a good chance to shrug off Counterspell even if it is Heightened. My take is to roll this version of Counterspell into the Mage Slayer feat so that martials can counter casters if they get in melee with them.
My idea, Counterspell 3rd level Abjuration 60ft Reaction when a creature casts a spell you can see using a focus or SVM components. The caster and its target make a contested spell casting ability check adding the level of the spell cast (the counter spell and the target spell). The winner of this contest may control or destroy the spell being countered. A spell successfully countered in this manner does not expend its spell slot.
I think this is an interesting change, as its both a buff and a nerf. You no longer need to worry about spending a high level slot to counter high level spells, you only need to save lvl 3 slots. In turn however, you no longer have the option to get a guaranteed counterspell, you have to weigh the risk of them passing the save. I agree that there is some confusion in regards to it taking slots or whatever, however generally speaking casters have lower CON meaning the save is still a pretty likely fail. I personally like how it is in 5e, you have options and imo its always more fun to have the option than not, even if not having it makes the base version stronger.
I kind of hate the new version. I'd keep it the same and maybe add another limit to it, such that you can only counterspell spells using an Action or Bonus Action (not Reaction spells). Honestly, I love the way it was handled in previous versions. You could counterspell with the same spell being cast and had to do a check to figure out the spell being cast from the components.
the way I usually run spell recognition is if you know the spell yourself you can recognize it if not a arcana check can give clues to what it is (the school, level etc) i dont really tell what the spell is though. if the spell is of a higher level then you are able to cast you are unsure what it is as its to complex.
I think it would be interesting to grant layers of info. Maybe it looks like "they're winding up for a huge spell", and you tell the players the level or tier of the spell. Then they would know how wary to be with a casting.
Yeah, I prefere the new way. That way it makes more sense, since counterspell is a reaction to seeing another mage casting a spell, so counterspell comes first on the order of actions, thus the caster doesn't even cast the spell
I like the 2014 version. It's the shenanigans that bring joy. It's also the only equalizer between casters and martials. Casting spells is risky because it can be counterspelled. You can lose a spell slot. But the barbarian can swing away.
@@astranger934 You get 2-3 chances and you don't lose a resource. You can attack all day. Sometimes even when you're actually kinda dead. Casters can usually do so much more than martials. This is a small risk they have that martials don't.
It's a problematic, but necessary spell. When I have a BBEG cast a spell and I know one of the players has the option of Counterspell, I allow them a Perception check to identify the spell being cast. A 10th level mage will have seen a few things arcane, divine, and nature-based so the DC would be manageable for many lower level spells.
I usually ban counterspell at my table and just use dispel magic. I think dispel magic presents a more mechanically interesting choice on if you want to spend your action to try to eliminate a powerful effect.
They said in the video that their intent with the original counterspell is that it “interrupts the casting” so a monster or npc spellcaster that has a X/day ability should not lose that ability, just the action. The language about not losing the spell slot would also back this up. And since they don’t have a “level” of spell slot, how do you set a DC to counter? Shouldn’t DMs be able to “upcast” too? I’d personally go back to the ability check, but you always have to roll. I don’t think you should get any bonus for upcasting. It supports their current goal of higher CR monsters/spellcasters are more difficult that a lower CR. I do like the streamlined nature of the saving throw through. We all know how slow combat can be and the current counterspell is such a meta situation; not to mention the unfair advantage that dm’s have, in that they don’t have to specify the spell level but players do.
Seriously if it was just about interrupting a spell why is it such a high level spell when a level one martial character could disrupt the spell with a successful shot with an arrow or something…
Describing legendary resistance, overcoming the counter spell should appear as an event something like magical beams, dueling for a second before the greater overcomes
I think traditionally there has been some level of making an Arcana check to see if the PC recognizes the spell. Though I think it is more fun and fair to mention the spell so you don't have to worry about the DM/Player being honest about what spell they were going to cast. I don't think it's fair if the player has to mention their spell first, and the DM doesn't. To rationalize that, I think if you know a spell, it doesn't make sense that you wouldn't recognize it being cast. Even if you don't know a spell, I think it is fair to say that you are familiar enough with spells, that you would know the difference between a cantrip being cast and a 9th level spell. But I also don't think it is fun to waste a counterspell on a cantrip and then have a 9th level spell used. (Which Sorcerers could do every time, you don't even know if they are cheating at that point because order doesn't really matter).
One thing, for the Bael example, he has a +11 to con saves, so it would benefit him more to make the con save than a wizard to make the counterspell roll on a 3rd level slot. So i dont know how i feel about this counterspell as a dm, i worry if will strip away counterplay opportunities for the players.
Re: knowing the spell before countering... I like it when the GM declares "a spell is being cast" and If there's any caster PCs within sight or hearing of the event, allow them to make a perception or arcana check to see if they recognize the spell. All at discretion of the GM.
I think they could go one step farther and make the saving throw based on the target's spellcasting ability modifier. Seeing as how monsters have proficiency bonus based on CR not Level (the archmage has a +4 despite knowing 9th level spells, making him level 18), A lvl 5 pc probably has a 14 or 15 DC. An enemy spellcaster using their primary ability score probably has a +5 or +6 to their primary save at CR 5 or 6. This means counterspell only works roughly 40-45% of the time. If you keep it at constitution saving throw, the archmage from the MM has a +9 Int Save but a +1 Con Save (though they have magic resistance because the archmage in the MM is an abjuration wizard).
Thank you Ted for this vidio. I originally didn't see that big of a difference when I first read the change. But seeing all the valid points you made I think I like the older version better unless they make some changes. As always I appreciate your thoughts and insightful videos that help us be aware.
I like the current counter spell. I feel like the new one could just be called something different and maybe make it a second level spell. Or keep it third, make current counter spell fourth level spell. I think there’s room for both. Or just keep it the same.
Keep counterspell as is, but raise its spell level to 5. Make a few tweaks to this and call it QuellSpell and have it be 3rd level. Now spellcasters can try to stop spells, and Higher level spellcasters can then forcibly stop and remove the magic from you.
Oh what if when you cast a spell and its countered, you could sort of "concede" to the counter spell, choosing to automatically fail the check but you can retain the the spell slot, but if you choose to instead attempt the saving throw and fail, you lose the spell slot
I had an idea to "fix" counterspell in my games, so to make it more doable, the simplest version is, ability check, the spell slot isn't expended but if u successfully counterspell on your turn u can use only spells slots of equal or lower level of the one used to counterspell. So if u counterspell at lv3 against a lv9 spell during ur turn u can only cast lv3 or below spells
If ur a player and get counterspelled u don't lose the slot and know that the next turn the villain won't be as effective. And if the monster get counterspelled it won't also be blasted by that player
I feel like the design of this change is to both give and take away power from the DM. Making it a saving throw so now your much stronger boss enemies can either Legendary Resist it, or simply power through it due to their larger con modifiers. Though at the same time, it is now much easier for your lower level monsters to get countered and because of this I like the idea that it wastes the monster's "x/per day" uses. Because another design goal they have with the new MM is to give the monsters innate magical abilities and attacks rather than casting spells (think "Arcane Bolt" attacks instead casting "Eldritch Blast") so with them not being spells, they cannot be counterspelled. However I would like for it to still have the possibility to expend spell slots, as the enemy succeeding pretty much sums up to a wasted spell slot. I'd like if it expended the slots of spells one level lower than it, that way it prevents 9th level gimping and allows it to still provide a reason to upcast it.
Is it? The archmage has a +1 con save. I think it may be a buff for the players a nerf against optimizers. Sure legendary resistance can kick in but that is not most of your encounters.
I think it's a nerf all around. Con saves are generally high for most competent spellcasters. The only consistent time you will be succeeding with counterspell is against spellcasters of your level. Not to mention if you fail your slot is still expended, but if you succeed their slot isn't expended. Maybe it isn't a nerf in EVERY scenario, but I do think it was nerfed to a point where it is more balanced in most levels of play.
@@beastslayer8729 aberrations and undead sure, but most casters just don't have good con saves unless they are the player characters. Overall con is a high saves, but just not on a lot of NPC/monster casters.
@@Ahglock I don't really have access to a bunch of monster stat blocks at the moment so I will have to take your word for it. Even so, I think the fact that the spell slot isn't lost on a successful counterspell is the real nerf. You are essentially spending a slot to stop them from casting that spell this round. They are just going to try again next round, so you are only delaying the inevitable, especially if they have access to higher level spells. You are going to run out of resources before them, even if they never succeed that Constitution save.
I like the change to counterspell. I definitely think that if you are using a creature’s natural ability that doesn’t use a spell slot (I.e innate spellcasting) it shouldn’t consume the use of that ability. I think that for the legendary resistance side, if the DM is willing to use one of only a few legendary reactions to push through a spell then it would be a good way to burn through those resistances and will probably take some adjusting to get used to from a tactical side. Lastly it can help avoid meta gaming to some extent because the players wouldn’t be able to upcast counterspell knowing that the spell being used is 4th level or higher. The only downside is that there isn’t really a mechanic for the players to try determining the spell being cast to decide if it is worth it to counterspell.
I tend to prefer a half way of both versions. In my opinion the spell slot must be considered to counter a spell of the same or lesser levels. Ans its ok to me the spell slot of the countered spell been spent.
It could be interesting to have the spell use the original rules to counter the spell and lose the action, but they have the con save to keep the spell slot/casting.
The change feels half baked to me. Everything that the change seems to 'fix' it also seems to cause a whole suite of new problems. Counterspell is still going to feel pretty mandatory even if they do fully adopt this new version. But really, their justification of attacking the spellcaster and overwhelming them physically with counterspell is weirdly tortured logic that's flagrantly wrong to the point of gaslighting.
@@TheBlink182ify I say it's mandatory because it opens up avenues of defense that nothing else in the game offers. In addition the usage of spells is so powerful both game mechanics wise and narratively that in my opinion you can never justify not having a chance of stopping them from being cast. Even against a legendary creature with 22 con, and 5 Legendary resistances to burn through, by round 6 when everyone is close to death and they start casting a spell any player is going to feel that counterspell is necessary. Even if they fail and theres a TPK or the big bad teleports away scott free not having at least the chance to stop it is going to feel awful. And because counterspell is the only mechanic in the game that fits in this hole players will always take it.
The thing that I really don't like is keeping the spell slot if countered. It just means delaying the inevitable in a way. You eat through your spell slots countering and they just keep going to cast it again later.
Personally my only gripe with the new counter-spell is it needs to benefit from upcasting, probably in the form of "add the spell's level to the DC of the saving throw" so a 9th level spell slot might have a DC of 8+ability+prof+9 which at high level might be as high as 29. This makes it so a 9th level counter spell almost certainly guarantees a successful counterspell. Or alternatively add the spell level difference to the DC so If you counter spell at 5th level a second level spell, add 3 to the DC. but that gets a bit complex. Other than this I really like the change. I see the problem with legendary resistance working against counterspell but I actually think this is a problem with legendary resistance itself. I always either remove LR (and compensate in other ways) or homebrew some variation on LR (see Trekiros - Game Changer's video on the subject, it is brilliant).
I think counterspell is ok as it is, just need a higher dc if the spell being countered is a lot higher, like increase the dc in 1 or 2 by every spell level above the spell slot you used.
If it was an associated skill check (like arcana) then I would agree with you. As it stands now, though, as just an ability check (so the max you can have usually is +5) I think those are fair odds, tbh. At 20 INT you would need to roll a 14 or higher to counter the highest spells, and that's NOT a reliable roll to make
No cause neither spell was already caster, just a caster making components, so doesnt matter the level of a spell thats is not casted yet. Thats the difference with dispel magic
@@isaaclizarragahernandez6643 While this is the argument WoTC made, there's a huge difference between defending the in-universe logic of a change, and defending the mechanical logic of the change. You can always write the lore after the mechanics, but that doesn't mean that the lore suddenly requires the mechanic. In this instance, I could just as easily say that counterspell functions by sending a disruption through The Weave to intercept the spell, therefore the disruption needs to be as strong as the spell that was being cast - either by using a higher level slot, or by just how good I am at magic. Furthermore, this means that the slot was spent. But that's just lore. That's just an in-universe explanation of the effect. They can explain any effect anyway they like. The actual mechanics of the spell are what is at question though. And the issue is, the new version takes away something that the old version had: The possibility of upcasting to block more powerful spells (that is, spend a more valuable resource to get a more valuable effect) along with the ability for the target to more easily avoid the counterspell by having a good con save (as many enemies do) or by using Legendary Resistance (as many enemies do).
I think it's a really nice specific boost to sorcerer for sure, a class that always to me seemed to be forced to play second fiddle to the wizard who could just do everything better, and then take simple feats to steal anything good that the sorcerer had. at the very least now the sorcerer feels like he is specifically stronger with magic when dealing with other magic users, which I think thematically makes sense. A character using his sheer force of personality and raw power to weild magic like a weapon *should* be able to overpower the spells of other spell casters that either have a weaker power, or are simply learned in how to manipulate magic in a more delicate, more flexible way. Now magic is a tool for the wizard, and a weapon for the sorcerer. ultimately it won't actually affect the game 90% of the time, because most of the time your not going to be fighting things that can cast spells, but during those boss fights against powerful magic wielding BBEG's it's going to feel like the sorcerer has allot more stage since he's going to be the one trying to hold back the bad guys huge arsenal of spells. Also, it means that magical duels between different magic users don't *always* boil down to how many times a caster can fire off a counter spell. as 5e works RN, assuming spells are announced before hand, it's just two magic users counter spelling each other until one of them runs out of spell slots. not exactly a exciting scene, like most people tend to think of when magic users fight... Imagine if the fight between dumbledore and voldemort was just them zapping each others spells away, before they both got tired an called it quits. The same way a barbarian can simply use his raw endurance to endure more punishment than a nimble elven ranger that may be much more flexible than a barbarian.
it's good that the effectiveness scales depending on the counterspellee's power level, but: There should be mechanics for upcasting. Perhaps your saving throw gets increased by level of counterspell minus the spell's level. Etc. Abjurer wizard should be just as good at counterspelling as any sorcerer with Heightened Spell. Warcaster should apply to any concentration check/saving throw (not just those from taking damage). Clarification is needed on the interaction with uses per day abilities and whether or not costly components are consumed. These should be in the spell description, not in a throwaway line from a YT video or hidden somewhere in the DMG or an errata.
Delay > Counterspell | Either way. I dont think the usage of Dominate person (1 / day) will be used up, with the new counterspell. Sure, they can cast it once per day. BUT, the new counterspell is designed to not burn counterspells, the justification is: "The spell was never cast, therefore no spellslot was spend." If we apply this logic here, the spell was never cast. So the "per day" usage wont go off and the creature would still be able to cast it.
A saving throw is to prevent yourself from any harm. Potentially losing a spell does not qualify for that at all. If you dont understand these basics of D&D then you should not tinker with this, WTC !!!
In my initial assessment of the Counterspell changes I had not considered Legendary Resistances. IMO this was intended as a defensive ability for "boss fight" caliber opponents. By having them available for use to negate a defensive ability weaponizes Legendary Resistances. I was already not a fan of the changes, but this puts me solidly in the "not at my table" camp.
Because the Anniversary is next year, I don't think they can wait until 2025. I also don't think the DM Guide is going to be a full copy of the book. It is going to be more likely just a hint at some of the more tips articles. The DMG could be completely written before parts of it is released and then you just edit those parts that end up getting changed. The same goes for the players handbook. The actual work of layout and writing the chapters can be completely done with the 2014 versions of the classes and then have the classes/spells that are changed switched out. More importantly, the PHB is probably not being re-written. There is going to be some art changes, but the actual text is probably going to be really close to the 2014 version. So it seems like there is a lot that needs to be done, but most of the work to make the books can be done without the playtest material. I would even say the Perkins and Co are probably writing the entirety of the DMG right now and will release certain articles from it to be refined. A large portion of the DMG doesn't need a playtest pass. Most of the layout can be done without the playtest material. Even the monster manual can be done before the playtest, because the monsters CRs aren't being updated and they are roughly staying equivalent to their 2014 versions in terms of power. There has been some discussion that monsters would fit their CR better, but you don't really need the PHB classes to do that. They aren't making a new game (or even a new edition) so the Monster Manual doesn't need to figure out where the power level of the classes are going to be because they are all going to be equivalent to their 2014 versions, and in some cases elements that worked better than they should are being lowered.
I’m a vacume I like that it takes the spell takes opponent ability into account, but I think with the changes to monster stat blocks it is gonna be a real fun-drain for me personally. Maybe if they make it able to counter Magic such a spell like abilities, but in a more difficult way?
I like that Counterspell targets the spellcaster instead of targeting the spell. It makes more sense to me both from a game mechanics aspect and a magical theory aspect. To be honest, the current Counterspell is pretty much a Dispel Magic as a reaction. If you want the ability for the caster to lose the spell slot then give the abjured the ability to cast Dispel Magic as a reaction to a spell being cast. Keep Counter Spell the new way.
I like counterspell, I dont find it to be a too powerful spell and I see no issues with this being more powerful for Sorcerers vs Wizards, especially if you allow to roll an istant arcana check to detect the spell before countering it. If you do you will always have wizards being much better in strategy (countering the right spell at the right time) and sorcerers being better in sheet magic power, but less clever. I sorta like it. (btw... I also created a 1st lvl illusionism spell wich is basically a lure for counterspell: the spell is doing just minor psychic damage, but if someone uses arcana to detect what it is, you are misleaded to think that it is a "end of the world" spell.)
I generally state that the player needs to make an Arcana check to determine the spell being cast. I don’t know if this was the intention of WoTC but it gives the player an opportunity to determine whether they want to Counterspell or not.
This is a rule in Xanathar's, but it takes a reaction. The idea being if you wanna know what the spell is, someone has to identify it and another counterspell it
@The_Crimson_Witch The RAW specifically state that on your turn you can "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn." It never says you can do anything except a reaction on someone else's turn.
There was discussion at one point of monsters moving away from spell slots entirely being the new norm, and if that’s what they’re doing, then I like this new counterspell for that (with clarification on if countering the action wastes the action use/ effective spell slot, though I’m still puzzling through if I care too much on that). You could still get some of those big moments a la CR, but instead of it being a sly resource managing it becomes a payoff for burning through legendary resistances, which feels… I don’t know, not quite as impactful to an audience and less surprising to the players. Upcast to waste the spell slot seems like a good middle ground to me, though I’m not real clear on how to balance it. Which is a lot of words to say “probably yes, but someone of cleverer or clearer mind would do better at the specifics”
i think it should only be able to affect spells of its level or lower. i would buff it however by saying because of the backlash of having your spell forcibly countered you are unable to cast spells to the start of your next turn if someone counterspells you successfully.
They could be moving forward with the rough draft of the Players handbook right now and just using the Unearthed Arcana to get feed back and then just adjust those individual pages. Until it's hard bound they could make adjustments to any of the pages really.
Counterspell( atleast old version) is part of the game of mage vers mage.. if u saw sam reagel use it in the past in critical role s1 as a bard u know how clutch it is also when used in s2 by the mage.
Based purely on the idea that they are doing 2- 3 versions of each class in the UAs, and Monk had that one dumpster fire version in Playtest 6. I agree that's there's no way for them to release only 1-2 more UAs by December and still be ready to print a new book and have it ready to sell by January. With everything they still need to address in the PHB alongside the Monk class, and them not even being done with class UAs.... they'd have to release a UA every 3-4 weeks with corrections from the previous ones in order to be even close to on track. Unless they release one really big UA once class UAs are done to address almost everything at once. 😱😭 Man, I really hope not. These Surveys are getting a little rough to fill out because they're so lengthy.
It wouldn’t consider a x times per day effect to be a spell slot, meaning counterspell would make those effects be wasted. It does favor players more than monsters, but players still have x times per day spells, like with Magic Initiate and Fey Touched. Such spells would be countered and wasted on a failed save. Counterspell making saves worse means it now works with effects like Bane and Mind Sliver.
Something to consider: you said sorcerers are now better than others at counterspelling because of heightened metamagic causing disadvantage on a save. I say they were better before because they can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a failed ability check.
I kind of like this version as a variant manoeuvre for the likes of Martial characters. They wouldn’t have the arcane ability knowledge etc to know the actual Counterspell, but it would give them a way to disrupt the caster any which way they can.
Counterspell is one of my favorite spells, and practically everything I love about it gets removed in this UA. I always like that Counterspell and Dispell Magic worked essentially the same way as each other, that consistent functionality was really cool. I love that you can choose to upcast in order to counter higher level spells, and you get to choose to either spend a higher level slot to be sure that you succeed, or risk the roll. I love that it's an ability check, so it really feels like you investing in being a strong caster matters, and it's still possible to counter even strong opponents. I love the counter-counter-counter stuff too, some of the coolest scenes happen when all the spellcasters cast counterspell at eachother. This iteration robs the spell of so much. As a saving throw, it's now dependent on the target making it very unlikely to succeed against even moderately strong enemies as chances are they will have a good Con save. Add on top of that legendary resistance, and the spell goes from a really clutch cool thing the caster can do that makes the whole table cheer to something practically nobody will even bother with because they know they will just be wasting a 3rd level slot. Plus, there's no upcasting for the spell anymore! Think about the end of Critical Role campaign 1, how epic was it when Sam told Matt he was casting at level 9. That moment couldn't have happened with this version. Upcasting wouldn't have mattered, and Vecna would almost certainly have shrugged it off and escaped. The existing mechanics of the spell lead to some really awesome moments, moments that this new version simply would not. If they HAVE to make it a save, at the very least there should be something you can do to make it more difficult. Maybe upcasting it increases your save DC or something. I really don't get it though. There's nothing WRONG with Counterspell as it is, it's awesome. Just make sure any villain that has some really important spell they need to cast ALSO has Counterspell. The party burning multiple 3rd or higher level slots to counter it really should earn them the success. There's no need to turn one of the best spells into something lame here. As for countering a spell wasting resources... yeah, I would prefer it burn the resource. After all, you spent a slot to cast Counterspell so why should you be spending an important resource but not deprive the enemy of one? But of all the changes, this is the one I'm most okay with. If they really don't want you to waste a slot if countered, then fine. Just leave the rest alone.
Personally the only thing I homebrew about Counterspell in my games is that you can’t cast Counterspell if you are already casting a spell. As for this new one I don’t really like that it is a saving throw not a check cause of everything you said and the Bards Jack of all Trades that also helped with such checks.
The entire point with the new Counterspell is that you aren't countering the actual spell, so it doesn't really matter what is being cast. You see someone in the process of casting so you are casting at the caster to disrupt their casting of a spell. That being said, I think War Caster should be updated to account for this. The act of casting a spell should require you to concentrate on the casting. Just the act, not on every spell. THis also allows for expanding your magic systems as well. Casting a 9th level spell should require more effort that casting a 1st level spell. It should be relatively easier to interrupt a higher level spell since the caster needs to put more effort into it. But as spell castors get to higher levels, casting lower level spells should be easier for them, effort wise.
Im cool with the idea of a saving throw, cause having access to legendary resistance is nice for high level monsters. But Con doesn't quite make as much sense to me. I get that its based on concentration, but i think this is different and should use their spell casting stat
That would make it a lot easier for ALL casters to make the save, since they have Proficiency in saving throws related to their spell casting modifier. As it is currently, only Sorcerers and Artificers have Proficiency in CON (and technically Eldritch Knights).
You brought up legendary resistance. I honestly don't get why they are leaving that as is. Legendary resistance needs serious fixing. My homebrew for it is a pool of 6-10 d20s that can be added to any of a creatures rolls including saves, damage, or attack rolls.
In the interview with Jeremy Crawford, the interaction of counterspell with monster abilities that cast spells was clarified; the monster does lose the use of the feature. This is, of course, the wrong ruling in my opinion, but I'm not that surprised because Jeremy Crawford said it, and I've almost never agreed with any of his rulings.
I like the idea of this counterspell, but think it could use some tweaks. Maybe if the target fails their concentration check by nore than 5 (or even 10), then they lose the spell slot. If they fail the check, but not by 5, the spell is merely interrupted and they don't lose the spell slot.
I feel like I am missing something...what's the DC of the Constitution Saving Throw you have to make? That information goes a long way toward deciding whether this is a good change or not.
Regarding dealing with Counterspell in battles... Unless someone at the table is running a dedicated anti-caster build, how often is Counterspell *REALLY* getting used? I've been playing since 1999, across 4 editions plus multiple other d20 systems, plus regularly watching/listening to half a dozen live-play streams. In my experience, outside the aforementioned dedicated anti-caster build, it's exceedingly rare to see Counterspell more than 1-2 times in a session at most, and quite common to not see it even ONCE for multiple sessions in a row. Making it complex to deal with should be fine. The people I game with certainly don't mind complexities in the play, as long as the results are satisfying. We ported over the old 3E rules for Counterspell as our starting point and have tweaked at it since then until we got a system we like. By default, the table is only told that a spell is being cast, and Counterspell can be castor not as each person chooses. However, as long as a player or NPC can notice the casting (no Subtle metamagic involved, they aren’t afflicted with Blind/Deaf, etc.) they can attempt one Arcana check as a free action to identify the spell before deciding. The base DC is 8 + spell level, and beating the DC by 5+ also identifies any Metamagic effects in use and the level of slot if the spell is being upcast. However, casters can also attempt a Performance check (opposed by Insight) to fake someone out; succeeding increases the Arcana check DC by 5. Is it complicated? Yes, yes it is. But it's satisfying in the moment and can really spike the tension at the table, making battles much more emotionally impactful.
I'd rather it just be removed as a spell and it becomes a type of reaction (a sub of a magic action, so you use it as a reaction but it uses up the caster's magic action on their turn - so turn order can be an issue if your caster has already gone, but that is the risk; prepared adventurers take this into account) that opens up to magic users that can cast third level spells. All it does is potentially delay a spell going off and wasting an action or maybe even a BA or reaction depending on the spell (maybe I want to counterspell the BBEG's Shield spell). The new proposed way just lacking. Would be better off buffing your caster to get higher initiative or surprise so you can drop Slow. A better use of a third level spells slot than maybe delaying a spell a round. I would keep the mechanic the same but remove it as a spell. Take away the "must have" and make it a contest of wills. Also I would propose it be a save against the Counterspelling caster's spell casting attribute (e.g. INT for Wizard, CHA for sorcerer, etc.) Instead of CON. Edit: Some additional thoughts. Give Abjuration wizards a bonus and make the save DC higher against them. Also I would clarify the rules. You don't want to slow down.game play but I would say at the very least if you can caste that level of spell you can recognize it, else if you are proficient with Arcana you can make a roll, DC 15 (too high?) or something to recognize it.
I think if they stick with the 2024 release we will get one maybe 2 more play tests and the rest will be a quick internal play test using what they learned from the play tests as a guide.
I will stay with 2014 version. I can see both versions with new being Countercast. BTW if you Ready a spell and not cast it then spell slot is expended.
I like the 2014 Counterspell, but I understand their reasoning for changing it. I get turning it into what's essentially a Concentration check, but that does take the caster out of the equation a little too much. Plus, an "optimized" caster shouldn't fail a Concentration check easily. I think my preference would be to make it feel like more of a "mage duel": an opposed Arcana check using your respective casting abilities (instead of straight INT), where one or the other can get a bonus to the check equal to the difference in level between the spell being cast and the spell slot of the Counterspell. If you are countering a 1st-level Magic Missile with a 3rd-level Counterspell, then you get a +2 bonus to your roll; if it's a 4th-level Dimension Door, then the caster gets a +1 bonus to their roll.
My opinion is that it is better to delay a game release than to release an incomplete or broken game. People in general have a much more keen memory of when something broken or incomplete is released and tend to forget when a good and complete product is released behind schedule. Examples aplenty in the video game market of games that were terrible at release and flopped despite all flaws fixed after release. Compare that to great games that were released late. People glossed over the release date and focused primarily on the great final result. Just my 2 cents.
i don't think larian was saying anything about the relative power levels of dispel magic vs counterspell. just the nature of a spell vs a magical effect means one is a lot more work to code. plenty of stuff that isn't powerful can be a nightmare to implement in computer code because of all the possibilities they need to contend with even if the majority of those cases have very limited impact overall
It's not really code complexity, it's content complexity. Just like Speak With Dead, which results in an insane amount of additional content, Dispell Magic means they need a way to handle what happens when the player Dispells something that was otherwise important to the story. That could mean significantly different story outcomes, new dialog, different NPC interactions, etc. The game as it is assumes that certain magical things will function as they should - but if the player can willy-nilly dispell, they now need to think about every single thing in the game and decide "is this actually magic or natural?" and then "how hard is this to dispell?" and finally "what happens if this stops working." And there are a LOT of random magical things in the game. What if you dispell a magical elevator? Is there another way down? What if you dispell a magical seal on the a door? You just skip finding the correct way to open that? What if that means you miss out on important exposition? The logical complexities are endless. For a DM, this is no issue because they can come up with a resolution on the fly. But in a game, they need to come up with every possibility in every instance and include it in the game.
Checkout the OBSBot Tiny 2 Camera for yourself: amzn.to/48u7X8e
www.obsbot.com/store/products/tiny-2
Use discount code OBSBOTNAYT to get $15 off!
Looks good hope u can keep it.
Looks good - the audio sync is off though?
I really wish they would add a new casting rule: "the sum of spells cast on your turn and after that turn (as a reaction), cannot exceed the level of the highest level spell that you can cast.
This would resolve the action surge issue without having to change the action surge feature. It would also close up a balance loophole created by reaction spells, allowing you to create more reaction spells and features. You would also have to balance offense vs defense as a caster, because you would be thinking "what kind of spell is he throwing next turn, and what spell would I counter it with?" You could give a spell 3 semi-niche effects or add more as it upcasts. This opens up 2014 counterspell as a high-level counter, so that they have to sacrifice their casting on their turn to "save up power" to perform a counterspell. Maybe they could turn it into a Compelled Duel situation (1 minute duration w/o concentration) and let them power struggle for it, but only if they sacrifice casting power each turn to keep participating in the duel.
I also wish that they split up the game role of counterspell into a suite of spells that allow the schools of magic to react to various threats uniquely, rather than boiling wizard duels down to "I cast counterspell". Maybe illusion blocks line if sight by creating a number of obstacles to hide behind, preventing several effects from activating. Maybe you bruefly polymorph your body to avoid or tank a spell. Maybe you get 10 feet of movement and can make a forceshield that blocks blast spells (dex saves) when people are nearby, or maybe grants half or full cover to people nearby you. Maybe you necromantically steal health from an enemy while being damaged, like a darker Hellish Rebuke. There are several ways this could be adapted to the schools of magic, at different spell levels, and for the primal, divine, and arcane themes.
Another way this change makes Sorcerers better (if I'm not mistaken) is that because you are now stopping the spell from being cast at all (rather than negating the effects) you can now use quicken spell to get that same spell off in the same turn.
Congrats, every single DM now hates you
Yesh probably, that will be super cool
There is also the Great Old One Pact, their level 10 has a feature that gives them Hex as an always prepared spell, and a boost to the Hex spell so that it also grants Disadvantage to saving throws with the ability score selected, Bane was also added to the Warlock spell list, and that is another spell that could interact with the new Counterspell.
The final battle of the D&D movie was clinched with counterspell, now that I think about it. Dang, that was a good movie!
I also didn't anticipate so many comments on the first video and community post being so tied to Blue MtG players. Like I know Counterspell is a blue spell, but I'm confused what that had to do with the Unearthed Arcana
If I had to hazard a guess, it’s the idea that counterspells in both DnD and MtG “feel” bad even though they are just a different form of interaction and control. In MtG you can play a massive creature and it gets removed, or in DnD you can start your rage as a barbarian before getting stunned, and both effectively “counter” the plan that you had in place. The difference is that a counterspell doesn’t let your plan even start.
My own personal thought is that counterspells are a part of the game just like any other. While other ways of stopping plans your opponent/party put into place happen after the plan is put into place and some damage has been done, you have the benefit of knowing more information and not wasting your answer to their plan on something not as powerful. Counterspell, while more powerful as it prevents it from ever beginning, comes with the cost of less information. It is easily baited out or you can force their resources (mana or reaction) on something else before the counterspell has something good to target.
The short story is, people don’t know how to play around counterspells and don’t want to learn
The problem I have with the original Counterspell was that it was ubiquitous. You Had to take it if it was accessible to you.
If you don't take it then you aren't interacting with spellcasting as powerfully as you could be. Powerful monsters typically have powerful spellcasting. If you Don't take counterspell you are helpless against those monsters. If you Do take counterspell you are down a spell known/prepared. If you you Use counterspell you are very Quickly burning through your spell resources. You are also very quickly burning your opponent's resources, and typically the party has more resources than the dm. The party Only Has more resources than the DM when counterspelling if multiple of your allies Also forgo spells known/prepared for counterspell.
This new Counterspell is still very Important, but you don't Need to take it becuase it's not quite as powerful as it once was.
Additionally: I think it Should be very very difficult to counter a spell cast by a sorcerer. Just like how I enjoy the sorcerer being able to boost their own spell DC. It's on flavor for the sorcerer to be more innately good at what niche of magic they can explore.
i am super happy with this change to counter spell. as a dm i hate the feeling of making my Player's lose a spell slot, now i can un abashedly put it on all my guards.
TreantMonk did a good analysis of this change to counterspell. I agree with him and I consider it a mistake to simply turn our noses at this just because it’s a nerf, especially without playtesting.
The shift they made doesn't focus on the spell being cast it focuses on the caster themselves. So the spell level doesn't need to be taken into account anymore
I agree, this now sounds more similar to all the other spells in the list
So as far as i can tell and i am sure i missed some, now that it is a saving throw things that would affect coutnerspell, and i don't think this is an exhaustive list either and some of these already affected counterspell as they where ability checks. I didn't look through monster features but like legendary resistance i am sure there are a couple
5e Features
Exhaustion level 3
Race Features
Halfling - Lucky
Hobgoblin - Fortune fromt he Many
Satyr - Magic Resistance
Yuan-ti - Magic Resistance
Class Features
Bard - Bardic Inspiration/Cutting Words
Paladin - Paladin Aura
Wizard - War Wizard Arcane Deflection/Transmution Wizard Transmuter Stone for Proficiency in Con Saves/Abjuration Spell Resistance/Divination Portent/Chronurgy Chronal Shift
Sorcerer - Heightened Spell/Divine Soul Favored by the Gods/Clockwork Soul Restore Balance and Trance of Order/Wild Magic Bend Luck/Shadow Magic Hound of Ill Omens
Druid - Circle of Stars Cosmic Omen Weal and Woe
Fighter - Indomitable/Rune Knight Frost Rune
Rogue - Arcane Trickster Spell Thief
Spells
Resistance
Bane
Bless
Hex (Warlock Eldrich Hex)
Silvery Barbs
Bestow Curse - Choose CON for disadvantage
Contagion - Slimy Doom
Feeblemind
Antimagic Field
Foresight
Items
Amulet of Health
Ioun Stone of Fortitude
Ring of Protection
Cloak of Protection
Manual of Bodily Health
Robe of Stars
Luck Blade
Luckstone
Staff of Power
Blackstaff
Robe of the Archmagi
Feats
Bountiful Luck
Resilient
Luck Feat
Metamagic Adept (To pick up Heightened Spell)
Mage Slayer
Stat Feats Mainly for CON (These are much less impactful, but who knows they could be useful)
ASI
Durable
Tavern Brawler
Dragon Fear
Dragon Hide
Dwarven Fortitude
Infernal Constitution
Orcish Fury
Second Chance
Crawford specifically said in the video that if it doesn't use a slot then the spell is wasted
I have always considered the once per day equivalent to a spell slot since that is what it is replacing.
Did he? Cause I didn’t hear that.
@@bradleyhurley6755
Personally, I never have. While I understand the comparison, they're definitely not 1 to 1 since X/day spells are cast at a fixed level.
@@commentary4298 ruclips.net/video/CQxFfFGtdxw/видео.htmlsi=ir22To1CJKOxiPwu&t=5087
@@commentary4298 Yes, he did.
First, I think the meta of DnD shifting is generally a good thing, especially when it comes to powerful spells. Things like Forcecage, Wall of Force, Conjure Animals, and I'd lump Counterspell in there being touched is a positive direction overall for the design of the next version of dnd. If we vote to say that we generally like the changes to this Counterspell the more likely we'll see more changes to spells that need to be brought in line. Also from the vod with Jeremy the main reason they said that Counterspell was too good, again in keeping with the above design philosophy.
Allowing Counterspell to change also frees up design space for more powerful magic to maybe remove magic, or magical properties from opponents. Something like Disjunction, which can take the role of what Counterspell used to do, and would be a less powerful version of Antimagic.
Now all that said, important questions like should Counterspell key off Constitution? Why not something like Wisdom? Generally only good on caster characters that can't also Counterspell, Druids & Clerics, and breaks up some of the power we see in the Constitution stat. It'll also make it less easy to save against for more powerful creature. Or if you want to keep it Con, why not allow an upcasting factor to increase the saving throw of the spell? Finally, 100% the intent for Counterspell that the WoTC vod states is, "a 3rd level spell shouldn't remove a powerful ability, only delay it instead." With that in mind, Monster abilities that can be countered should equally be immune to it. The times in which you could counter and it should also burn the resource seems to be things like items. Wands, rods, staves, and scrolls, these things should be used up but not the creatures innate powers. This needs to be better worded either in the new monster designs that will eventually come out, or in a fall up statement whether it should apply to monster abilities that casts spells without slots.
So Counterspell changes Imo, is a good step, and needs potentially some changes to finalize the design and create clearer wording about the intent to some of its new features.
I have always felt Counterspell should be an opposed Arcana skill check. Whichever caster has more skill and/or experience should be more likely to get the favorable result.
Also, RAW it looks like the new Counterspell wastes creatures' daily uses of spells, warlocks' Mystic Arcanums, and the daily free casts of racial spells and feat spells.
I think it really needed a nerf, and given the core function of it, people will still pick it! It is still something you want in your arsenal, but it is crazy now to think of some party members not having it even though they technically could. It is now in a place where you very rarely, but still sometimes, might not pick it. Honestly, it is almost still a bit much of a must pick just because of the fundamental potential of the spell. Delaying a Fireball on your entire party, a Forcecage, Wall of Force etc is still HUGE! If you have a 5 round combat and you trade all your reactions for the entire combat to negate 1 whole turn of the big bad, then those are quite well spent imo. Obviously it also costs a bunch of spell slots which makes it a bit poor. However, find a way to impose disadvantage on the saving throw and you will have a lot more success.
Regarding Legendary Resistance. Anything which allows you to burn it using your Reaction is great in my book.
Regarding burning spell slots. Since the Spell Slots are burned whenever you Ready a Spell even though you never cast it, the same should be for stopping a counter spell. It can go either way, but keep it consistent because now they have inconsistent rules. Especially after Jeremy presented the reasoning which is directly in opposition to their current rules.
I'll say that I like the new Counterspell. Feels balanced to me, especially as a DM. I can never use Counterspell as a DM because it's cruel. But making it a roll that my player have to make to get that healing spell to work adds to the game, not takes away from it.
Two things should change, though: it should automatically succeed against a cantrip, and there should be *some* upcast mechanic. It would feel stupid to cast against a cantrip (especially with the blind spell technique some tables use) and have it fail. Also, a lot of those "at will" spells in the new monster design would be great to just stop in their tracks. And I don't know what the upcast feature should look like, but it should be something. A cumulative negative to their check per spell slot, maybe, but it needs to be *something*.
For me new Counterspell is a way to let monsters use it against players. The old version was kinda frustration for players - they lose action, spell slot and can't do anything to prevent it (only to counterspell it again).
In new version players can now cast a Wish and not be afraid to be countered and lose precious 9 level spellslot.
But I still think that it need some tweeks with leveled spell version. Like add the difference between spell level to saving throw
But if you were a bad guy wizard, and you saw your foe about to cast WISH - you would want to counter it because that’s about to end your life.
You SHOULD be afraid to be countered when facing an enemy spellcaster.
There are plenty of ways to play around the current version of Counterspell. You can outrange it as it only has a 60ft range. You can use full cover or heavy obscurity so the aspiring Counterspeller can't see you. You can also ready spells outside of Counterspell range or behind cover and then step out and release them. You can make your spells not have components using Subtle Spell or Aberrant Mind's psionic sorcery. And then, as you pointed out, the tried and true "I Counterspell your Counterspell."
It is definitely a player skill issue if they can't find ways around Counterspell. There is no reason Counterspell needs to be a Con saving throw. And adding a built in failure condition is like adding tripping into Smash Bros.
@@jeffreybond5796 But that is not new mechanic. Why not remove saving throws on all spells?
Sounds crazy! So why remove it on Counterspell?)
I love concept of trying to remain concentraition via con saving throw, that Jeremy Crowford pointed out.
But thats theory. I'll try to playtest the new version
@@AunShiLord Not all spells have saving throws or attack rolls as it is anyways. Magic Missile always hits, even though it is targeting a creature (and it's only counter is one specific spell, just like Counterspell). Sleep, Color Spray, Alarm, Wall of Force, Maze, Cloud of Daggers, Hex, Hunter's Mark, Heat Metal, Spike Growth, etc, etc all don't give saving throws.
Also, the current version of Counterspell is really targeting the spell the creature is casting and not the creature itself, so it makes sense that it wouldn't have a saving throw (because spells and the weave can't make saving throws). The object that gets catapulted by the Catapult spell doesn't get a save, for instance, because it's not a creature.
And of course I think it's fine to playtest the new version, I just think it's also important to fully understand the context of both versions. Misunderstanding the current Counterspell might make you think it's more powerful than it actually is.
I think that at the level you cast Wish, that will be a trivial concern
in my games my DM has always said what the spell an enemy is casting regardless of if they know someone has counterspell prepared because they've seen it as fair considering it's expected that players say what spell they're casting to the DM
Yeah I agree. I really dislike the whole "I'm casting a spell..." cause it really starts to feel like a DM vs Player situation.
In my games automatically told players what the spell if its one they could cast (had access to). Otherwise if they ask they get a free arcana check with the dc being 10 plus the level of the spell.
I truly like the og counterspell. Right with you Ted
Aura of Protection, Bless, and Bear's Endurance still helps you with new Counterspell, and Bane and Hex can also make it worse for the target :)
No. Hex no longer helps, but it did if you hexed the target’s spell casting modifier with the 2014 counterspell.
@@henrymalinowski5125If you are a 10th level or higher Great Old One warlock, your Eldritch Hex feature gives them disadvantage on saving throws tied to the selected ability score.
Edit: Basically a specific warlock can really make you vulnerable to the new Counterspell.
@@henrymalinowski5125 I'm so sorry, you're right, I completely forgot that Hex is also changed.
@@quellion5394 The playtest 5 hex changes were reverted, but neither effected saving throws.
I like the changes to Counterspell and Abjuration wizards, but I would suggest two changes:
1) Upcasting Counterspell increases the DC of the save by 1 for each level you upcast by.
2) Abjuration should let you cast Counterspell once a round as a free action
This change will be a nerf for Sorcerers, not a buff.
Sorcerers were already the best at using Counterspell because of Subtle Spell Metamagic. Subtle meant that an enemy caster couldn't possibly Counterspell your Counterspell, so there was a 0% chance of counterplay once you cast Counterspell. You could 100% shut down any spell of 3rd level or lower. And the Tasha's feature Magical Guidance already let them reroll a failed ability check if they were trying to counter a higher level spell. Switching to the new version would be a significant downgrade for them in many respects.
Enemies with very high Con saves will still have a good chance to shrug off Counterspell even if it is Heightened.
My take is to roll this version of Counterspell into the Mage Slayer feat so that martials can counter casters if they get in melee with them.
My idea,
Counterspell 3rd level Abjuration 60ft
Reaction when a creature casts a spell you can see using a focus or SVM components.
The caster and its target make a contested spell casting ability check adding the level of the spell cast (the counter spell and the target spell). The winner of this contest may control or destroy the spell being countered. A spell successfully countered in this manner does not expend its spell slot.
Oh dear god no
I think this is an interesting change, as its both a buff and a nerf. You no longer need to worry about spending a high level slot to counter high level spells, you only need to save lvl 3 slots. In turn however, you no longer have the option to get a guaranteed counterspell, you have to weigh the risk of them passing the save. I agree that there is some confusion in regards to it taking slots or whatever, however generally speaking casters have lower CON meaning the save is still a pretty likely fail. I personally like how it is in 5e, you have options and imo its always more fun to have the option than not, even if not having it makes the base version stronger.
I kind of hate the new version. I'd keep it the same and maybe add another limit to it, such that you can only counterspell spells using an Action or Bonus Action (not Reaction spells).
Honestly, I love the way it was handled in previous versions. You could counterspell with the same spell being cast and had to do a check to figure out the spell being cast from the components.
the way I usually run spell recognition is if you know the spell yourself you can recognize it if not a arcana check can give clues to what it is (the school, level etc) i dont really tell what the spell is though. if the spell is of a higher level then you are able to cast you are unsure what it is as its to complex.
I think it would be interesting to grant layers of info. Maybe it looks like "they're winding up for a huge spell", and you tell the players the level or tier of the spell. Then they would know how wary to be with a casting.
Yeah, I prefere the new way. That way it makes more sense, since counterspell is a reaction to seeing another mage casting a spell, so counterspell comes first on the order of actions, thus the caster doesn't even cast the spell
I like the 2014 version. It's the shenanigans that bring joy. It's also the only equalizer between casters and martials. Casting spells is risky because it can be counterspelled. You can lose a spell slot. But the barbarian can swing away.
Terrible take. Attacking as a barbarian is risky in the same sense if the opponent casts shield negating your entire turn.
@@astranger934 You get 2-3 chances and you don't lose a resource. You can attack all day. Sometimes even when you're actually kinda dead. Casters can usually do so much more than martials. This is a small risk they have that martials don't.
It's a problematic, but necessary spell. When I have a BBEG cast a spell and I know one of the players has the option of Counterspell, I allow them a Perception check to identify the spell being cast. A 10th level mage will have seen a few things arcane, divine, and nature-based so the DC would be manageable for many lower level spells.
I usually ban counterspell at my table and just use dispel magic. I think dispel magic presents a more mechanically interesting choice on if you want to spend your action to try to eliminate a powerful effect.
They said in the video that their intent with the original counterspell is that it “interrupts the casting” so a monster or npc spellcaster that has a X/day ability should not lose that ability, just the action. The language about not losing the spell slot would also back this up. And since they don’t have a “level” of spell slot, how do you set a DC to counter? Shouldn’t DMs be able to “upcast” too?
I’d personally go back to the ability check, but you always have to roll. I don’t think you should get any bonus for upcasting. It supports their current goal of higher CR monsters/spellcasters are more difficult that a lower CR.
I do like the streamlined nature of the saving throw through. We all know how slow combat can be and the current counterspell is such a meta situation; not to mention the unfair advantage that dm’s have, in that they don’t have to specify the spell level but players do.
Seriously if it was just about interrupting a spell why is it such a high level spell when a level one martial character could disrupt the spell with a successful shot with an arrow or something…
Describing legendary resistance, overcoming the counter spell should appear as an event something like magical beams, dueling for a second before the greater overcomes
I think traditionally there has been some level of making an Arcana check to see if the PC recognizes the spell. Though I think it is more fun and fair to mention the spell so you don't have to worry about the DM/Player being honest about what spell they were going to cast. I don't think it's fair if the player has to mention their spell first, and the DM doesn't.
To rationalize that, I think if you know a spell, it doesn't make sense that you wouldn't recognize it being cast. Even if you don't know a spell, I think it is fair to say that you are familiar enough with spells, that you would know the difference between a cantrip being cast and a 9th level spell. But I also don't think it is fun to waste a counterspell on a cantrip and then have a 9th level spell used. (Which Sorcerers could do every time, you don't even know if they are cheating at that point because order doesn't really matter).
One thing, for the Bael example, he has a +11 to con saves, so it would benefit him more to make the con save than a wizard to make the counterspell roll on a 3rd level slot. So i dont know how i feel about this counterspell as a dm, i worry if will strip away counterplay opportunities for the players.
5:30 on 2014 Legendary Caster I just edit their sheet to say “Legendary Spellcasting”
-Spells
For a few years, I've been having counterspell initiate a contest between the caster and the counterspeller.
Re: knowing the spell before countering... I like it when the GM declares "a spell is being cast" and If there's any caster PCs within sight or hearing of the event, allow them to make a perception or arcana check to see if they recognize the spell. All at discretion of the GM.
I think they could go one step farther and make the saving throw based on the target's spellcasting ability modifier. Seeing as how monsters have proficiency bonus based on CR not Level (the archmage has a +4 despite knowing 9th level spells, making him level 18), A lvl 5 pc probably has a 14 or 15 DC. An enemy spellcaster using their primary ability score probably has a +5 or +6 to their primary save at CR 5 or 6. This means counterspell only works roughly 40-45% of the time. If you keep it at constitution saving throw, the archmage from the MM has a +9 Int Save but a +1 Con Save (though they have magic resistance because the archmage in the MM is an abjuration wizard).
main point of contension is the part where 'enemy doesn't lose the spell slot used even if counterspell works'. It needs to be taken out.
Thank you Ted for this vidio. I originally didn't see that big of a difference when I first read the change. But seeing all the valid points you made I think I like the older version better unless they make some changes. As always I appreciate your thoughts and insightful videos that help us be aware.
So un you said I win. What exactly did I win?
I like the current counter spell. I feel like the new one could just be called something different and maybe make it a second level spell. Or keep it third, make current counter spell fourth level spell. I think there’s room for both. Or just keep it the same.
Keep counterspell as is, but raise its spell level to 5. Make a few tweaks to this and call it QuellSpell and have it be 3rd level. Now spellcasters can try to stop spells, and Higher level spellcasters can then forcibly stop and remove the magic from you.
@@davidburns9766 Sounds good to me.
Oh what if when you cast a spell and its countered, you could sort of "concede" to the counter spell, choosing to automatically fail the check but you can retain the the spell slot, but if you choose to instead attempt the saving throw and fail, you lose the spell slot
This is a cool thought.
I had an idea to "fix" counterspell in my games, so to make it more doable, the simplest version is, ability check, the spell slot isn't expended but if u successfully counterspell on your turn u can use only spells slots of equal or lower level of the one used to counterspell. So if u counterspell at lv3 against a lv9 spell during ur turn u can only cast lv3 or below spells
If ur a player and get counterspelled u don't lose the slot and know that the next turn the villain won't be as effective. And if the monster get counterspelled it won't also be blasted by that player
I feel like the design of this change is to both give and take away power from the DM. Making it a saving throw so now your much stronger boss enemies can either Legendary Resist it, or simply power through it due to their larger con modifiers. Though at the same time, it is now much easier for your lower level monsters to get countered and because of this I like the idea that it wastes the monster's "x/per day" uses. Because another design goal they have with the new MM is to give the monsters innate magical abilities and attacks rather than casting spells (think "Arcane Bolt" attacks instead casting "Eldritch Blast") so with them not being spells, they cannot be counterspelled.
However I would like for it to still have the possibility to expend spell slots, as the enemy succeeding pretty much sums up to a wasted spell slot. I'd like if it expended the slots of spells one level lower than it, that way it prevents 9th level gimping and allows it to still provide a reason to upcast it.
Idk, it may have been nerfed to hell, but I don't think the change is bad. It may not be perfect but it's better than it was.
Is it? The archmage has a +1 con save. I think it may be a buff for the players a nerf against optimizers. Sure legendary resistance can kick in but that is not most of your encounters.
@@AhglockIf it pisses off Treantmonk, being the WotC-sucking-off picket line crosser that he is, it's good that optimizers are taking a hit.
I think it's a nerf all around. Con saves are generally high for most competent spellcasters. The only consistent time you will be succeeding with counterspell is against spellcasters of your level. Not to mention if you fail your slot is still expended, but if you succeed their slot isn't expended. Maybe it isn't a nerf in EVERY scenario, but I do think it was nerfed to a point where it is more balanced in most levels of play.
@@beastslayer8729 aberrations and undead sure, but most casters just don't have good con saves unless they are the player characters. Overall con is a high saves, but just not on a lot of NPC/monster casters.
@@Ahglock I don't really have access to a bunch of monster stat blocks at the moment so I will have to take your word for it. Even so, I think the fact that the spell slot isn't lost on a successful counterspell is the real nerf. You are essentially spending a slot to stop them from casting that spell this round. They are just going to try again next round, so you are only delaying the inevitable, especially if they have access to higher level spells. You are going to run out of resources before them, even if they never succeed that Constitution save.
I like the change to counterspell.
I definitely think that if you are using a creature’s natural ability that doesn’t use a spell slot (I.e innate spellcasting) it shouldn’t consume the use of that ability.
I think that for the legendary resistance side, if the DM is willing to use one of only a few legendary reactions to push through a spell then it would be a good way to burn through those resistances and will probably take some adjusting to get used to from a tactical side.
Lastly it can help avoid meta gaming to some extent because the players wouldn’t be able to upcast counterspell knowing that the spell being used is 4th level or higher. The only downside is that there isn’t really a mechanic for the players to try determining the spell being cast to decide if it is worth it to counterspell.
I tend to prefer a half way of both versions. In my opinion the spell slot must be considered to counter a spell of the same or lesser levels. Ans its ok to me the spell slot of the countered spell been spent.
It could be interesting to have the spell use the original rules to counter the spell and lose the action, but they have the con save to keep the spell slot/casting.
Love your discussion of this topic. Yr videos are very very helpful.
The change feels half baked to me. Everything that the change seems to 'fix' it also seems to cause a whole suite of new problems. Counterspell is still going to feel pretty mandatory even if they do fully adopt this new version. But really, their justification of attacking the spellcaster and overwhelming them physically with counterspell is weirdly tortured logic that's flagrantly wrong to the point of gaslighting.
Counterspell as its, its not mandatory at all... no boss with leg resistence is getting cs ever
@@TheBlink182ify You say counterspell isn't mandatory but that's like saying fireball isn't mandatory. We all know how powerful it is.
@@wingedhussar2909 fireball is powerful????????...oke we dont have mixmaxs here, got it
@@TheBlink182ify I say it's mandatory because it opens up avenues of defense that nothing else in the game offers. In addition the usage of spells is so powerful both game mechanics wise and narratively that in my opinion you can never justify not having a chance of stopping them from being cast.
Even against a legendary creature with 22 con, and 5 Legendary resistances to burn through, by round 6 when everyone is close to death and they start casting a spell any player is going to feel that counterspell is necessary. Even if they fail and theres a TPK or the big bad teleports away scott free not having at least the chance to stop it is going to feel awful. And because counterspell is the only mechanic in the game that fits in this hole players will always take it.
The thing that I really don't like is keeping the spell slot if countered. It just means delaying the inevitable in a way. You eat through your spell slots countering and they just keep going to cast it again later.
Personally my only gripe with the new counter-spell is it needs to benefit from upcasting, probably in the form of "add the spell's level to the DC of the saving throw" so a 9th level spell slot might have a DC of 8+ability+prof+9 which at high level might be as high as 29. This makes it so a 9th level counter spell almost certainly guarantees a successful counterspell. Or alternatively add the spell level difference to the DC so If you counter spell at 5th level a second level spell, add 3 to the DC. but that gets a bit complex.
Other than this I really like the change.
I see the problem with legendary resistance working against counterspell but I actually think this is a problem with legendary resistance itself. I always either remove LR (and compensate in other ways) or homebrew some variation on LR (see Trekiros - Game Changer's video on the subject, it is brilliant).
I think counterspell is ok as it is, just need a higher dc if the spell being countered is a lot higher, like increase the dc in 1 or 2 by every spell level above the spell slot you used.
If it was an associated skill check (like arcana) then I would agree with you. As it stands now, though, as just an ability check (so the max you can have usually is +5)
I think those are fair odds, tbh. At 20 INT you would need to roll a 14 or higher to counter the highest spells, and that's NOT a reliable roll to make
No cause neither spell was already caster, just a caster making components, so doesnt matter the level of a spell thats is not casted yet.
Thats the difference with dispel magic
@@isaaclizarragahernandez6643 While this is the argument WoTC made, there's a huge difference between defending the in-universe logic of a change, and defending the mechanical logic of the change. You can always write the lore after the mechanics, but that doesn't mean that the lore suddenly requires the mechanic. In this instance, I could just as easily say that counterspell functions by sending a disruption through The Weave to intercept the spell, therefore the disruption needs to be as strong as the spell that was being cast - either by using a higher level slot, or by just how good I am at magic. Furthermore, this means that the slot was spent.
But that's just lore. That's just an in-universe explanation of the effect. They can explain any effect anyway they like. The actual mechanics of the spell are what is at question though. And the issue is, the new version takes away something that the old version had: The possibility of upcasting to block more powerful spells (that is, spend a more valuable resource to get a more valuable effect) along with the ability for the target to more easily avoid the counterspell by having a good con save (as many enemies do) or by using Legendary Resistance (as many enemies do).
@@damienamarty
The max a player can have is +5, monsters can have a 30 con score so...
I was def one of those mentioning the critical role moment.
XGE provides rules to recognize a spell as a reaction, I allow players to do so as part of the same reaction to cast counterspell
I think it's a really nice specific boost to sorcerer for sure, a class that always to me seemed to be forced to play second fiddle to the wizard who could just do everything better, and then take simple feats to steal anything good that the sorcerer had. at the very least now the sorcerer feels like he is specifically stronger with magic when dealing with other magic users, which I think thematically makes sense. A character using his sheer force of personality and raw power to weild magic like a weapon *should* be able to overpower the spells of other spell casters that either have a weaker power, or are simply learned in how to manipulate magic in a more delicate, more flexible way. Now magic is a tool for the wizard, and a weapon for the sorcerer. ultimately it won't actually affect the game 90% of the time, because most of the time your not going to be fighting things that can cast spells, but during those boss fights against powerful magic wielding BBEG's it's going to feel like the sorcerer has allot more stage since he's going to be the one trying to hold back the bad guys huge arsenal of spells.
Also, it means that magical duels between different magic users don't *always* boil down to how many times a caster can fire off a counter spell. as 5e works RN, assuming spells are announced before hand, it's just two magic users counter spelling each other until one of them runs out of spell slots. not exactly a exciting scene, like most people tend to think of when magic users fight... Imagine if the fight between dumbledore and voldemort was just them zapping each others spells away, before they both got tired an called it quits.
The same way a barbarian can simply use his raw endurance to endure more punishment than a nimble elven ranger that may be much more flexible than a barbarian.
it's good that the effectiveness scales depending on the counterspellee's power level, but:
There should be mechanics for upcasting. Perhaps your saving throw gets increased by level of counterspell minus the spell's level. Etc.
Abjurer wizard should be just as good at counterspelling as any sorcerer with Heightened Spell.
Warcaster should apply to any concentration check/saving throw (not just those from taking damage).
Clarification is needed on the interaction with uses per day abilities and whether or not costly components are consumed. These should be in the spell description, not in a throwaway line from a YT video or hidden somewhere in the DMG or an errata.
Delay > Counterspell |
Either way. I dont think the usage of Dominate person (1 / day) will be used up, with the new counterspell.
Sure, they can cast it once per day. BUT, the new counterspell is designed to not burn counterspells, the justification is: "The spell was never cast, therefore no spellslot was spend."
If we apply this logic here, the spell was never cast. So the "per day" usage wont go off and the creature would still be able to cast it.
A saving throw is to prevent yourself from any harm. Potentially losing a spell does not qualify for that at all. If you dont understand these basics of D&D then you should not tinker with this, WTC !!!
In my initial assessment of the Counterspell changes I had not considered Legendary Resistances. IMO this was intended as a defensive ability for "boss fight" caliber opponents. By having them available for use to negate a defensive ability weaponizes Legendary Resistances. I was already not a fan of the changes, but this puts me solidly in the "not at my table" camp.
Agree on a lot, but "media" is already plural, so "medias" ain't a word, chief.
Because the Anniversary is next year, I don't think they can wait until 2025. I also don't think the DM Guide is going to be a full copy of the book. It is going to be more likely just a hint at some of the more tips articles. The DMG could be completely written before parts of it is released and then you just edit those parts that end up getting changed.
The same goes for the players handbook. The actual work of layout and writing the chapters can be completely done with the 2014 versions of the classes and then have the classes/spells that are changed switched out. More importantly, the PHB is probably not being re-written. There is going to be some art changes, but the actual text is probably going to be really close to the 2014 version.
So it seems like there is a lot that needs to be done, but most of the work to make the books can be done without the playtest material. I would even say the Perkins and Co are probably writing the entirety of the DMG right now and will release certain articles from it to be refined. A large portion of the DMG doesn't need a playtest pass.
Most of the layout can be done without the playtest material.
Even the monster manual can be done before the playtest, because the monsters CRs aren't being updated and they are roughly staying equivalent to their 2014 versions in terms of power. There has been some discussion that monsters would fit their CR better, but you don't really need the PHB classes to do that. They aren't making a new game (or even a new edition) so the Monster Manual doesn't need to figure out where the power level of the classes are going to be because they are all going to be equivalent to their 2014 versions, and in some cases elements that worked better than they should are being lowered.
I’m a vacume I like that it takes the spell takes opponent ability into account, but I think with the changes to monster stat blocks it is gonna be a real fun-drain for me personally.
Maybe if they make it able to counter Magic such a spell like abilities, but in a more difficult way?
I like that Counterspell targets the spellcaster instead of targeting the spell. It makes more sense to me both from a game mechanics aspect and a magical theory aspect. To be honest, the current Counterspell is pretty much a Dispel Magic as a reaction. If you want the ability for the caster to lose the spell slot then give the abjured the ability to cast Dispel Magic as a reaction to a spell being cast. Keep Counter Spell the new way.
Targeting the caster doesnt require a counterspell.
I like counterspell, I dont find it to be a too powerful spell and I see no issues with this being more powerful for Sorcerers vs Wizards, especially if you allow to roll an istant arcana check to detect the spell before countering it. If you do you will always have wizards being much better in strategy (countering the right spell at the right time) and sorcerers being better in sheet magic power, but less clever. I sorta like it.
(btw... I also created a 1st lvl illusionism spell wich is basically a lure for counterspell: the spell is doing just minor psychic damage, but if someone uses arcana to detect what it is, you are misleaded to think that it is a "end of the world" spell.)
I generally state that the player needs to make an Arcana check to determine the spell being cast. I don’t know if this was the intention of WoTC but it gives the player an opportunity to determine whether they want to Counterspell or not.
This is a rule in Xanathar's, but it takes a reaction. The idea being if you wanna know what the spell is, someone has to identify it and another counterspell it
@@The_Crimson_Witch How do you communicate when it isn't your turn?
@@bradleyhurley6755talking is free, but keep in mind a round is 6 seconds total. Only so much you can say in that time
@@bradleyhurley6755 RAW nothing says you can only speak on your turn, that's just a common house rule.
@The_Crimson_Witch The RAW specifically state that on your turn you can "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn." It never says you can do anything except a reaction on someone else's turn.
I don't like any spell that one feels like they NEED to get. like shield. Old counterspell is too powerful if everyone picks it up.
I totally thought you were trying to mimic the OG blue Counterspell card from MtG.
I didn't even notice you were signaling a zoom in.
A warlock's hex targeting ability checks would also be nerfed with this, which in this case benefits the counterspell caster if they are also hexed.
There was discussion at one point of monsters moving away from spell slots entirely being the new norm, and if that’s what they’re doing, then I like this new counterspell for that (with clarification on if countering the action wastes the action use/ effective spell slot, though I’m still puzzling through if I care too much on that).
You could still get some of those big moments a la CR, but instead of it being a sly resource managing it becomes a payoff for burning through legendary resistances, which feels… I don’t know, not quite as impactful to an audience and less surprising to the players.
Upcast to waste the spell slot seems like a good middle ground to me, though I’m not real clear on how to balance it.
Which is a lot of words to say “probably yes, but someone of cleverer or clearer mind would do better at the specifics”
i think it should only be able to affect spells of its level or lower. i would buff it however by saying because of the backlash of having your spell forcibly countered you are unable to cast spells to the start of your next turn if someone counterspells you successfully.
They could be moving forward with the rough draft of the Players handbook right now and just using the Unearthed Arcana to get feed back and then just adjust those individual pages. Until it's hard bound they could make adjustments to any of the pages really.
Counterspell( atleast old version) is part of the game of mage vers mage.. if u saw sam reagel use it in the past in critical role s1 as a bard u know how clutch it is also when used in s2 by the mage.
For my opinion on the UA version of Counterspell, to quote a certain cartoon horse, "No sir, I don't like it."
Based purely on the idea that they are doing 2- 3 versions of each class in the UAs, and Monk had that one dumpster fire version in Playtest 6. I agree that's there's no way for them to release only 1-2 more UAs by December and still be ready to print a new book and have it ready to sell by January.
With everything they still need to address in the PHB alongside the Monk class, and them not even being done with class UAs.... they'd have to release a UA every 3-4 weeks with corrections from the previous ones in order to be even close to on track.
Unless they release one really big UA once class UAs are done to address almost everything at once. 😱😭 Man, I really hope not. These Surveys are getting a little rough to fill out because they're so lengthy.
It wouldn’t consider a x times per day effect to be a spell slot, meaning counterspell would make those effects be wasted. It does favor players more than monsters, but players still have x times per day spells, like with Magic Initiate and Fey Touched. Such spells would be countered and wasted on a failed save.
Counterspell making saves worse means it now works with effects like Bane and Mind Sliver.
i feel that these changes are a net nerf to Abjuration wizards and the compensation is lack luster at best
Something to consider: you said sorcerers are now better than others at counterspelling because of heightened metamagic causing disadvantage on a save. I say they were better before because they can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a failed ability check.
Also subtle spell is one of the strongest options, as it breaks the chain of counterspelling counterspell.
@@spikehammer3112 that's been there
But, as before, you can't use multiple metamagics on the same spell. So if you heighten, you can't subtle
I hate the new counterspell, but I could live with it if the Abjuration wizard still got some kind of improved counterspell.
I kind of like this version as a variant manoeuvre for the likes of Martial characters. They wouldn’t have the arcane ability knowledge etc to know the actual Counterspell, but it would give them a way to disrupt the caster any which way they can.
Would actually be so sick as a reaction attack which attempts to throw off the Somatic or Verbal component, causing the spell to fail! Love it!
Counterspell is one of my favorite spells, and practically everything I love about it gets removed in this UA. I always like that Counterspell and Dispell Magic worked essentially the same way as each other, that consistent functionality was really cool. I love that you can choose to upcast in order to counter higher level spells, and you get to choose to either spend a higher level slot to be sure that you succeed, or risk the roll. I love that it's an ability check, so it really feels like you investing in being a strong caster matters, and it's still possible to counter even strong opponents. I love the counter-counter-counter stuff too, some of the coolest scenes happen when all the spellcasters cast counterspell at eachother.
This iteration robs the spell of so much. As a saving throw, it's now dependent on the target making it very unlikely to succeed against even moderately strong enemies as chances are they will have a good Con save. Add on top of that legendary resistance, and the spell goes from a really clutch cool thing the caster can do that makes the whole table cheer to something practically nobody will even bother with because they know they will just be wasting a 3rd level slot. Plus, there's no upcasting for the spell anymore! Think about the end of Critical Role campaign 1, how epic was it when Sam told Matt he was casting at level 9. That moment couldn't have happened with this version. Upcasting wouldn't have mattered, and Vecna would almost certainly have shrugged it off and escaped. The existing mechanics of the spell lead to some really awesome moments, moments that this new version simply would not.
If they HAVE to make it a save, at the very least there should be something you can do to make it more difficult. Maybe upcasting it increases your save DC or something. I really don't get it though. There's nothing WRONG with Counterspell as it is, it's awesome. Just make sure any villain that has some really important spell they need to cast ALSO has Counterspell. The party burning multiple 3rd or higher level slots to counter it really should earn them the success. There's no need to turn one of the best spells into something lame here.
As for countering a spell wasting resources... yeah, I would prefer it burn the resource. After all, you spent a slot to cast Counterspell so why should you be spending an important resource but not deprive the enemy of one? But of all the changes, this is the one I'm most okay with. If they really don't want you to waste a slot if countered, then fine. Just leave the rest alone.
Personally the only thing I homebrew about Counterspell in my games is that you can’t cast Counterspell if you are already casting a spell. As for this new one I don’t really like that it is a saving throw not a check cause of everything you said and the Bards Jack of all Trades that also helped with such checks.
The entire point with the new Counterspell is that you aren't countering the actual spell, so it doesn't really matter what is being cast. You see someone in the process of casting so you are casting at the caster to disrupt their casting of a spell. That being said, I think War Caster should be updated to account for this. The act of casting a spell should require you to concentrate on the casting. Just the act, not on every spell.
THis also allows for expanding your magic systems as well. Casting a 9th level spell should require more effort that casting a 1st level spell. It should be relatively easier to interrupt a higher level spell since the caster needs to put more effort into it. But as spell castors get to higher levels, casting lower level spells should be easier for them, effort wise.
Im cool with the idea of a saving throw, cause having access to legendary resistance is nice for high level monsters. But Con doesn't quite make as much sense to me. I get that its based on concentration, but i think this is different and should use their spell casting stat
That would make it a lot easier for ALL casters to make the save, since they have Proficiency in saving throws related to their spell casting modifier. As it is currently, only Sorcerers and Artificers have Proficiency in CON (and technically Eldritch Knights).
i'd personally just make legendary resistance make those monsters incapable of ever failing a saving throw.
You brought up legendary resistance. I honestly don't get why they are leaving that as is. Legendary resistance needs serious fixing.
My homebrew for it is a pool of 6-10 d20s that can be added to any of a creatures rolls including saves, damage, or attack rolls.
In the interview with Jeremy Crawford, the interaction of counterspell with monster abilities that cast spells was clarified; the monster does lose the use of the feature.
This is, of course, the wrong ruling in my opinion, but I'm not that surprised because Jeremy Crawford said it, and I've almost never agreed with any of his rulings.
I like the idea of this counterspell, but think it could use some tweaks. Maybe if the target fails their concentration check by nore than 5 (or even 10), then they lose the spell slot. If they fail the check, but not by 5, the spell is merely interrupted and they don't lose the spell slot.
I like the saving throw not the keep the spell slot
Video discussion starts at 4:20
I feel like I am missing something...what's the DC of the Constitution Saving Throw you have to make? That information goes a long way toward deciding whether this is a good change or not.
It's a Con save vs. The counterspeller's spell save DC
Interesting title
Regarding dealing with Counterspell in battles...
Unless someone at the table is running a dedicated anti-caster build, how often is Counterspell *REALLY* getting used? I've been playing since 1999, across 4 editions plus multiple other d20 systems, plus regularly watching/listening to half a dozen live-play streams. In my experience, outside the aforementioned dedicated anti-caster build, it's exceedingly rare to see Counterspell more than 1-2 times in a session at most, and quite common to not see it even ONCE for multiple sessions in a row. Making it complex to deal with should be fine.
The people I game with certainly don't mind complexities in the play, as long as the results are satisfying. We ported over the old 3E rules for Counterspell as our starting point and have tweaked at it since then until we got a system we like.
By default, the table is only told that a spell is being cast, and Counterspell can be castor not as each person chooses. However, as long as a player or NPC can notice the casting (no Subtle metamagic involved, they aren’t afflicted with Blind/Deaf, etc.) they can attempt one Arcana check as a free action to identify the spell before deciding. The base DC is 8 + spell level, and beating the DC by 5+ also identifies any Metamagic effects in use and the level of slot if the spell is being upcast. However, casters can also attempt a Performance check (opposed by Insight) to fake someone out; succeeding increases the Arcana check DC by 5.
Is it complicated? Yes, yes it is. But it's satisfying in the moment and can really spike the tension at the table, making battles much more emotionally impactful.
If you get counterspelled as an abjuration wizard casting and abjuration spell, does your arcane ward stullget recharged?
No, because the spell slot has to be consumed per the updated Abjuration wizard in this same document.
We do Arcana checks to figure out what is being casted (as a free action)
As you run it, that's homebrew. Which is fine, do what works for you
I'd rather it just be removed as a spell and it becomes a type of reaction (a sub of a magic action, so you use it as a reaction but it uses up the caster's magic action on their turn - so turn order can be an issue if your caster has already gone, but that is the risk; prepared adventurers take this into account) that opens up to magic users that can cast third level spells. All it does is potentially delay a spell going off and wasting an action or maybe even a BA or reaction depending on the spell (maybe I want to counterspell the BBEG's Shield spell). The new proposed way just lacking. Would be better off buffing your caster to get higher initiative or surprise so you can drop Slow. A better use of a third level spells slot than maybe delaying a spell a round.
I would keep the mechanic the same but remove it as a spell. Take away the "must have" and make it a contest of wills. Also I would propose it be a save against the Counterspelling caster's spell casting attribute (e.g. INT for Wizard, CHA for sorcerer, etc.) Instead of CON.
Edit: Some additional thoughts.
Give Abjuration wizards a bonus and make the save DC higher against them.
Also I would clarify the rules. You don't want to slow down.game play but I would say at the very least if you can caste that level of spell you can recognize it, else if you are proficient with Arcana you can make a roll, DC 15 (too high?) or something to recognize it.
Dispell magic is VS the spell/Magic effect. Counter Spell is interrupting the target.
I think if they stick with the 2024 release we will get one maybe 2 more play tests and the rest will be a quick internal play test using what they learned from the play tests as a guide.
I will stay with 2014 version. I can see both versions with new being Countercast.
BTW if you Ready a spell and not cast it then spell slot is expended.
I like the 2014 Counterspell, but I understand their reasoning for changing it. I get turning it into what's essentially a Concentration check, but that does take the caster out of the equation a little too much. Plus, an "optimized" caster shouldn't fail a Concentration check easily.
I think my preference would be to make it feel like more of a "mage duel": an opposed Arcana check using your respective casting abilities (instead of straight INT), where one or the other can get a bonus to the check equal to the difference in level between the spell being cast and the spell slot of the Counterspell. If you are countering a 1st-level Magic Missile with a 3rd-level Counterspell, then you get a +2 bonus to your roll; if it's a 4th-level Dimension Door, then the caster gets a +1 bonus to their roll.
My opinion is that it is better to delay a game release than to release an incomplete or broken game. People in general have a much more keen memory of when something broken or incomplete is released and tend to forget when a good and complete product is released behind schedule. Examples aplenty in the video game market of games that were terrible at release and flopped despite all flaws fixed after release. Compare that to great games that were released late. People glossed over the release date and focused primarily on the great final result. Just my 2 cents.
i don't think larian was saying anything about the relative power levels of dispel magic vs counterspell. just the nature of a spell vs a magical effect means one is a lot more work to code. plenty of stuff that isn't powerful can be a nightmare to implement in computer code because of all the possibilities they need to contend with even if the majority of those cases have very limited impact overall
It's not really code complexity, it's content complexity. Just like Speak With Dead, which results in an insane amount of additional content, Dispell Magic means they need a way to handle what happens when the player Dispells something that was otherwise important to the story. That could mean significantly different story outcomes, new dialog, different NPC interactions, etc. The game as it is assumes that certain magical things will function as they should - but if the player can willy-nilly dispell, they now need to think about every single thing in the game and decide "is this actually magic or natural?" and then "how hard is this to dispell?" and finally "what happens if this stops working." And there are a LOT of random magical things in the game. What if you dispell a magical elevator? Is there another way down? What if you dispell a magical seal on the a door? You just skip finding the correct way to open that? What if that means you miss out on important exposition? The logical complexities are endless. For a DM, this is no issue because they can come up with a resolution on the fly. But in a game, they need to come up with every possibility in every instance and include it in the game.