First, a countered spell cost you a spell slot and the opposing caster a spell slot and a reaction. You might have lost a spell slot but that's also a spell slot that won't be used on your party so you have still accomplished something.
Your sorcerer PC can just wait until the opposing caster has used the reaction (such as another party member using a spell or makes an opportunity attack) and then cast freely. The other spellcasters might not be casting spells, but encourage them to start.
Shocking grasp costs the target the reaction and then a quickened spell works, and distant spell can add range so that's a pretty solid bet, but keep in mind the opposing casters don't know what spell your PC is casting without using their reactions to identify the spell per XGtE rules on it. There is also an INT (arcana) check to successfully identify the spell so that might not be successful as well. The rules are on page 85 of XGtE. If your PC always leads with a cantrip then identifying it costs the reaction to cast counterspell and if the opposing caster counterspells the cantrip then your PC is also capable of safely casting a quickened spell.
You seem clear on the range limitations. Move first outside of range of counterspell then cast your spell. You'll always either be close enough to close and use shocking grasp against reactions or far enough away to move outside of counterspell range barring the dimensions of the area in which the PC's are fighting.
Seeing a spell being cast is a requirement to counterspell it. That means subtle spell, (improved) invisibility, or any effect that blocks line of sight prevents counterspell.
Then there's the obvious choice of also using counterspell on counterspell but you've already decided not to go that route.
Counterspell can be useful, but it's not that hard to work around.
There are other things forgotten about in this situation as well.
it's possible that the other members are getting similar challenges but we're not hearing about them because the OP is focused on Counterspell. But let's put that aside since we don't know.
Somebody mentioned about many spell caster's stat blocks don't have counterspell. Do a closer analysis. Many Spell Caster's stat blocks tend to not have all the spells they should have. Or the freedom to cast spells in the same way that PC's do either. the Monster Manual also mentions ways to put Classes onto Monster Templates which the DM could easily be doing. So what the statblock's say is very easily not the answer in the situation. Or even bringing them up.
There are things other than Meta-magic that can be done as well. There are feats like Spell Sniper. It won't work on all spells but for those that have attack rolls. They become more dangerous. Allies can take things like mage slayer. And there are other more creative or more esoteric options.
Remember the enemy has to see you to counter spell. There are actually quite alot of sorcerer spells that can be used around cover or don't require sight
1.Even in a fog cloud or darkness zone attacks would just be at disadvantage at worst (if your both in they would cancel out to a straight roll) but not be counterspellable.
2.classes other than rogue can hide in combat. try going behind something and hiding then using quicken to cast(or just wait one turn if trying to save slots).
3. greater invisibility also blocks counterspell.
You don't even need to hide for #2 as long as you have total cover. The downside with this approach is that you have to cast the spell as a readied action, then move out of cover to release it, using your reaction as well.
If you're willing to make things more difficult all around for counterspell, make spell cards, declare that you're casting X card (face down), then flip it over after giving the chance to counterspell. This makes it very easy to burn the enemies' spell slots on counterspelling cantrips.
If you're willing to make things more difficult all around for counterspell, make spell cards, declare that you're casting X card (face down), then flip it over after giving the chance to counterspell. This makes it very easy to burn the enemies' spell slots on counterspelling cantrips.
Unless this was the decided system from session zero then I would highly suggest that you do not try to do that mid campaign. Things like that are a step towards a players vs DMs situation and D&D should never be about players vs DMs. If it ever devolves into that situation than believe me the entire table loses.
If you're willing to make things more difficult all around for counterspell, make spell cards, declare that you're casting X card (face down), then flip it over after giving the chance to counterspell. This makes it very easy to burn the enemies' spell slots on counterspelling cantrips.
Unless this was the decided system from session zero then I would highly suggest that you do not try to do that mid campaign. Things like that are a step towards a players vs DMs situation and D&D should never be about players vs DMs. If it ever devolves into that situation than believe me the entire table loses.
Yea, it's just a different way people have handled counterspell, which is technically RAW, but not the way people typically play it. Even if you wanted to do things that way, you need the DM to agree that that's how identifying spells being cast works. If you were going to go that route, I would suggest starting by telling the DM that you aren't having fun in combat because of counterspell and proposing that as a possible solution.
If you're willing to make things more difficult all around for counterspell, make spell cards, declare that you're casting X card (face down), then flip it over after giving the chance to counterspell. This makes it very easy to burn the enemies' spell slots on counterspelling cantrips.
Unless this was the decided system from session zero then I would highly suggest that you do not try to do that mid campaign. Things like that are a step towards a players vs DMs situation and D&D should never be about players vs DMs. If it ever devolves into that situation than believe me the entire table loses.
Yea, it's just a different way people have handled counterspell, which is technically RAW, but not the way people typically play it. Even if you wanted to do things that way, you need the DM to agree that that's how identifying spells being cast works. If you were going to go that route, I would suggest starting by telling the DM that you aren't having fun in combat because of counterspell and proposing that as a possible solution.
It's how counterspell actually works, however. "Typical" would have to be demonstrated here because that appears to be an assumption, but even if people do not follow the rules for identifying spells that should be the exception explained at session zero. IE "We let PC's know what spells are being cast as a given at this table instead of the using a reaction to make an arcana check to figure it out" is a house rule.
I think that stems from the fact people just say "I cast fireball" or whatever and the counterspell choice gets meta-gamed in response because natural word choice gives it away. I don't think either way is a bad way to play, but it definitely impacts how effective counterspell can be.
I think that stems from the fact people just say "I cast fireball" or whatever and the counterspell choice gets meta-gamed in response because natural word choice gives it away. I don't think either way is a bad way to play, but it definitely impacts how effective counterspell can be.
Every group is different, but in the groups I play with we explicitly ban metagaming; players are only supposed to act on the basis of what their characters know (so if the group is split, one half may know something the others don't, even if all players are present), and the DM should act the same way.
They need to counterspell on the basis of what the enemy knows about what is being cast, just as players should do the same. Okay, so we all know it's a fireball, but the enemy/adventurer only sees a tiny orange mote; do they spot it in time? Do they know what it is (have they ever seen a Fireball cast before)? Would they legitimately counterspell it no matter (just in case)? These are the kinds of questions to ask.
Just as actions you take as a character should be informed by the character; it's a roleplaying game after all, so you (and the DM) should be playing to the role(s), not the mechanics.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think that stems from the fact people just say "I cast fireball" or whatever and the counterspell choice gets meta-gamed in response because natural word choice gives it away. I don't think either way is a bad way to play, but it definitely impacts how effective counterspell can be.
Every group is different, but in the groups I play with we explicitly ban metagaming; players are only supposed to act on the basis of what their characters know (so if the group is split, one half may know something the others don't, even if all players are present), and the DM should act the same way.
They need to counterspell on the basis of what the enemy knows about what is being cast, just as players should do the same. Okay, so we all know it's a fireball, but the enemy/adventurer only sees a tiny orange mote; do they spot it in time? Do they know what it is (have they ever seen a Fireball cast before)? Would they legitimately counterspell it no matter (just in case)? These are the kinds of questions to ask.
Just as actions you take as a character should be informed by the character; it's a roleplaying game after all, so you (and the DM) should be playing to the role(s), not the mechanics.
That's how it should work but I think a lot of players meta-gaming counterspell in the way I mentioned did not realize they were doing it because of the natural flow that comes from listing the spell as part of the action.
Keeping the topic of dealing with counterspelling DM's....
I prefer slow if the save DC is high enough because is prevents reactions (including future uses of counterspell) and cuts the number of spells cast in half or less. My 3rd-level slot causing another caster to cast 3 spells over 6 rounds instead of 6 spells is much more efficient than casting counterspell 3 times. Bonus points for multiple casters. The only drawback is the saves so it's a riskier approach.
A person only needs to use subtle spell on one spell (slow) for that approach to work too instead of multiple uses because of the reaction loss effect to prevent multiple counterspell attempts.
I think that stems from the fact people just say "I cast fireball" or whatever and the counterspell choice gets meta-gamed in response because natural word choice gives it away. I don't think either way is a bad way to play, but it definitely impacts how effective counterspell can be.
Every group is different, but in the groups I play with we explicitly ban metagaming; players are only supposed to act on the basis of what their characters know (so if the group is split, one half may know something the others don't, even if all players are present), and the DM should act the same way.
They need to counterspell on the basis of what the enemy knows about what is being cast, just as players should do the same. Okay, so we all know it's a fireball, but the enemy/adventurer only sees a tiny orange mote; do they spot it in time? Do they know what it is (have they ever seen a Fireball cast before)? Would they legitimately counterspell it no matter (just in case)? These are the kinds of questions to ask.
Just as actions you take as a character should be informed by the character; it's a roleplaying game after all, so you (and the DM) should be playing to the role(s), not the mechanics.
That's how it should work but I think a lot of players meta-gaming counterspell in the way I mentioned did not realize they were doing it because of the natural flow that comes from listing the spell as part of the action.
Keeping the topic of dealing with counterspelling DM's....
I prefer slow if the save DC is high enough because is prevents reactions (including future uses of counterspell) and cuts the number of spells cast in half or less. My 3rd-level slot causing another caster to cast 3 spells over 6 rounds instead of 6 spells is much more efficient than casting counterspell 3 times. Bonus points for multiple casters. The only drawback is the saves so it's a riskier approach.
A person only needs to use subtle spell on one spell (slow) for that approach to work too instead of multiple uses because of the reaction loss effect to prevent multiple counterspell attempts.
you often don't need to even subtle spell with slow. it's a 120' range.
I think that stems from the fact people just say "I cast fireball" or whatever and the counterspell choice gets meta-gamed in response because natural word choice gives it away. I don't think either way is a bad way to play, but it definitely impacts how effective counterspell can be.
Every group is different, but in the groups I play with we explicitly ban metagaming; players are only supposed to act on the basis of what their characters know (so if the group is split, one half may know something the others don't, even if all players are present), and the DM should act the same way.
They need to counterspell on the basis of what the enemy knows about what is being cast, just as players should do the same. Okay, so we all know it's a fireball, but the enemy/adventurer only sees a tiny orange mote; do they spot it in time? Do they know what it is (have they ever seen a Fireball cast before)? Would they legitimately counterspell it no matter (just in case)? These are the kinds of questions to ask.
Just as actions you take as a character should be informed by the character; it's a roleplaying game after all, so you (and the DM) should be playing to the role(s), not the mechanics.
That's how it should work but I think a lot of players meta-gaming counterspell in the way I mentioned did not realize they were doing it because of the natural flow that comes from listing the spell as part of the action.
Keeping the topic of dealing with counterspelling DM's....
I prefer slow if the save DC is high enough because is prevents reactions (including future uses of counterspell) and cuts the number of spells cast in half or less. My 3rd-level slot causing another caster to cast 3 spells over 6 rounds instead of 6 spells is much more efficient than casting counterspell 3 times. Bonus points for multiple casters. The only drawback is the saves so it's a riskier approach.
A person only needs to use subtle spell on one spell (slow) for that approach to work too instead of multiple uses because of the reaction loss effect to prevent multiple counterspell attempts.
you often don't need to even subtle spell with slow. it's a 120' range.
That is a good point. Range does matter.
Slow is just a good spell all around this edition.
Update: I did talk to him and he did agree to let up a bit but on the promise I don't use Fireball... Which I wasn't using anyways because my favorite tactic is to polymorph myself into a Giant Ape and go full DK on my enemies.
Update: I did talk to him and he did agree to let up a bit but on the promise I don't use Fireball... Which I wasn't using anyways because my favorite tactic is to polymorph myself into a Giant Ape and go full DK on my enemies.
It's pretty easy to cast fireball outside of counterspell range anyway. ;-)
Update: I did talk to him and he did agree to let up a bit but on the promise I don't use Fireball... Which I wasn't using anyways because my favorite tactic is to polymorph myself into a Giant Ape and go full DK on my enemies.
He made you promise not to use Fireball? Why? Does he not know how to build an encounter that takes Fireball into account (other than using counter spell)? Will his spellcasters also not be allowed to use that spell?
It's great that you don't use it anyway and if his world building makes fire spells a problem, sure, but if he's just doing it because Fireball does a lot of damage early on that's a different ball game. What happens when you get Cone of Cold or Chain Lightning? Heck, Blight at level 4 is nasty. Will he take that away as well?
Here's a few techniques for conjurers of cheap tricks and sorcery can use to get around Counterspell:
Quickened Spell metamagicFeint
Throwing a cantrip directly at a caster is a good way to goad them into casting CS prematurely
Once they spring their CS on your cantrip, you can then follow up with a quickened spell using your bonus action to target that caster, seeking to vanquish or pacify them in the process
Counterspell... the Counterspell
Mr Crawford himself has stated that you are able to CS a casting of Counterspell (see Sage Advice/JC's twitter feed)
Target this enemy with particularly nasty spell (perhaps Disintegrate, since casters tend to have moderate-to-poor DEX saves)
Once your opponent moves to target you with CS as their reaction, use your own reaction to target them opponent with a casting of CS yourself, letting your big hit spell go off unmolested
if your enemy casts CS at higher level than you do, since the check to determine your success or failure of stopping their casting is an Ability Check, your can spend 1 sorcery point to use the sorcerer's Magical Guidance (Tasha's Cauldron feature) to essentially re-roll that check if your CS initially fails
They Can't CS What They Cant See
CS's casting time reads "1 Reaction*"
* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
This works especially well for Shadow Magic sorcerers, who are able to see into, through, and beyond the heavily obscuring magical darkness created by the Darkness spell when they cast it using Sorcery Points
Subtle Spell metamagic
If you can't CS what you can't see, then casting a spell using the Subtle Spell metamagic can arguably negate the enemy caster's need to actually see you cast the spell
Some DMs are a little harsh and argue that people can see you using material components to spells that you may have subtle, so this might not work!
Aberrant Mind Sorcerer: Psionic Spells (lvl 6)
This is like Subtle Spell metamagic but better
Unlike Subtle Spell, you're not required to use material components still to cast a spell (as long as the material components don't define a cost)
It's also generally cheaper than Subtle spell as it doesn't cost additional Sorcery Points to cast this way
Old Fashioned Teamwork
Similar to the Quickened spell feint, you're simply getting others in your party to draw out the enemy caster's reaction. The enemy caster might be particularly keen to cast CS on your Paladin if the Paladin has managed to rush them and cast Smite in melee. Once their reaction is spent, now's your chance!
Outrange Them
CS has a range of 60ft... Fireball has a range of 120ft... I rest my case
Some spells have a range of 60ft but also have an AOE range
You can cast Evard's Black Tentacles which has a range of 60ft but can include the enemy caster in it's AOE, forcing an enemy 80ft away to make a save
I read this thread and didn't see the following come up: Is it possible the DM is playing around your character due to power level? From the way you describe the other characters, it kind of sounds like you are more effective than the rest of your party by an order of magnitude. It's pretty easy to connect the narrative dots from there. BBEG sees that the sorcerer is the biggest problem and so they take steps to mitigate that problem. That's not a case of the DM playing to win, that's a case of the DM playing villains with depth and adaptability.
As someone who pretty consistently has the most powerful character at my tables, I get your frustration, but it might be worth considering that the frequency of counterspells is not meant to dampen your fun rather it's meant to enhance the fun of your tablemates. I could be wrong, of course, but nothing you're saying so far discounts this possibility.
" 'I counterspell your counterspell' is really lame for gameplay." - I don't see why this is lame? As a DM, it seems fun(ny), and the players seem to enjoy it when they can do this. Am I missing something?
" 'I counterspell your counterspell' is really lame for gameplay." - I don't see why this is lame? As a DM, it seems fun(ny), and the players seem to enjoy it when they can do this. Am I missing something?
Seeing as this thread is nearly 4 years old and 2024 making changes to the number/type of spells you can cast per turn, it would be good to note that without a readied action or non-spell slot using spell feature, you could only do this to push a cantrip through... and I doubt there would be many situations where that tradeoff is worth it.
" 'I counterspell your counterspell' is really lame for gameplay." - I don't see why this is lame? As a DM, it seems fun(ny), and the players seem to enjoy it when they can do this. Am I missing something?
Seeing as this thread is nearly 4 years old and 2024 making changes to the number/type of spells you can cast per turn, it would be good to note that without a readied action or non-spell slot using spell feature, you could only do this to push a cantrip through... and I doubt there would be many situations where that tradeoff is worth it.
Since the restriction applies to spells cast with spell slots, enemies like the Mage are free to counter an attempt to counter their level 4 Fireball. That typed, they don't have spell slots to recover if countered; whereas the player character does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A lot of this has probably been covered but....
First, a countered spell cost you a spell slot and the opposing caster a spell slot and a reaction. You might have lost a spell slot but that's also a spell slot that won't be used on your party so you have still accomplished something.
Your sorcerer PC can just wait until the opposing caster has used the reaction (such as another party member using a spell or makes an opportunity attack) and then cast freely. The other spellcasters might not be casting spells, but encourage them to start.
Shocking grasp costs the target the reaction and then a quickened spell works, and distant spell can add range so that's a pretty solid bet, but keep in mind the opposing casters don't know what spell your PC is casting without using their reactions to identify the spell per XGtE rules on it. There is also an INT (arcana) check to successfully identify the spell so that might not be successful as well. The rules are on page 85 of XGtE. If your PC always leads with a cantrip then identifying it costs the reaction to cast counterspell and if the opposing caster counterspells the cantrip then your PC is also capable of safely casting a quickened spell.
You seem clear on the range limitations. Move first outside of range of counterspell then cast your spell. You'll always either be close enough to close and use shocking grasp against reactions or far enough away to move outside of counterspell range barring the dimensions of the area in which the PC's are fighting.
Seeing a spell being cast is a requirement to counterspell it. That means subtle spell, (improved) invisibility, or any effect that blocks line of sight prevents counterspell.
Then there's the obvious choice of also using counterspell on counterspell but you've already decided not to go that route.
Counterspell can be useful, but it's not that hard to work around.
There are other things forgotten about in this situation as well.
it's possible that the other members are getting similar challenges but we're not hearing about them because the OP is focused on Counterspell. But let's put that aside since we don't know.
Somebody mentioned about many spell caster's stat blocks don't have counterspell. Do a closer analysis. Many Spell Caster's stat blocks tend to not have all the spells they should have. Or the freedom to cast spells in the same way that PC's do either. the Monster Manual also mentions ways to put Classes onto Monster Templates which the DM could easily be doing. So what the statblock's say is very easily not the answer in the situation. Or even bringing them up.
There are things other than Meta-magic that can be done as well. There are feats like Spell Sniper. It won't work on all spells but for those that have attack rolls. They become more dangerous. Allies can take things like mage slayer. And there are other more creative or more esoteric options.
You don't even need to hide for #2 as long as you have total cover. The downside with this approach is that you have to cast the spell as a readied action, then move out of cover to release it, using your reaction as well.
If you're willing to make things more difficult all around for counterspell, make spell cards, declare that you're casting X card (face down), then flip it over after giving the chance to counterspell. This makes it very easy to burn the enemies' spell slots on counterspelling cantrips.
Unless this was the decided system from session zero then I would highly suggest that you do not try to do that mid campaign. Things like that are a step towards a players vs DMs situation and D&D should never be about players vs DMs. If it ever devolves into that situation than believe me the entire table loses.
Yea, it's just a different way people have handled counterspell, which is technically RAW, but not the way people typically play it. Even if you wanted to do things that way, you need the DM to agree that that's how identifying spells being cast works. If you were going to go that route, I would suggest starting by telling the DM that you aren't having fun in combat because of counterspell and proposing that as a possible solution.
It's how counterspell actually works, however. "Typical" would have to be demonstrated here because that appears to be an assumption, but even if people do not follow the rules for identifying spells that should be the exception explained at session zero. IE "We let PC's know what spells are being cast as a given at this table instead of the using a reaction to make an arcana check to figure it out" is a house rule.
I think that stems from the fact people just say "I cast fireball" or whatever and the counterspell choice gets meta-gamed in response because natural word choice gives it away. I don't think either way is a bad way to play, but it definitely impacts how effective counterspell can be.
Every group is different, but in the groups I play with we explicitly ban metagaming; players are only supposed to act on the basis of what their characters know (so if the group is split, one half may know something the others don't, even if all players are present), and the DM should act the same way.
They need to counterspell on the basis of what the enemy knows about what is being cast, just as players should do the same. Okay, so we all know it's a fireball, but the enemy/adventurer only sees a tiny orange mote; do they spot it in time? Do they know what it is (have they ever seen a Fireball cast before)? Would they legitimately counterspell it no matter (just in case)? These are the kinds of questions to ask.
Just as actions you take as a character should be informed by the character; it's a roleplaying game after all, so you (and the DM) should be playing to the role(s), not the mechanics.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That's how it should work but I think a lot of players meta-gaming counterspell in the way I mentioned did not realize they were doing it because of the natural flow that comes from listing the spell as part of the action.
Keeping the topic of dealing with counterspelling DM's....
I prefer slow if the save DC is high enough because is prevents reactions (including future uses of counterspell) and cuts the number of spells cast in half or less. My 3rd-level slot causing another caster to cast 3 spells over 6 rounds instead of 6 spells is much more efficient than casting counterspell 3 times. Bonus points for multiple casters. The only drawback is the saves so it's a riskier approach.
A person only needs to use subtle spell on one spell (slow) for that approach to work too instead of multiple uses because of the reaction loss effect to prevent multiple counterspell attempts.
you often don't need to even subtle spell with slow. it's a 120' range.
That is a good point. Range does matter.
Slow is just a good spell all around this edition.
Update: I did talk to him and he did agree to let up a bit but on the promise I don't use Fireball... Which I wasn't using anyways because my favorite tactic is to polymorph myself into a Giant Ape and go full DK on my enemies.
It's pretty easy to cast fireball outside of counterspell range anyway. ;-)
He made you promise not to use Fireball? Why? Does he not know how to build an encounter that takes Fireball into account (other than using counter spell)? Will his spellcasters also not be allowed to use that spell?
It's great that you don't use it anyway and if his world building makes fire spells a problem, sure, but if he's just doing it because Fireball does a lot of damage early on that's a different ball game. What happens when you get Cone of Cold or Chain Lightning? Heck, Blight at level 4 is nasty. Will he take that away as well?
Here's a few techniques for conjurers of cheap tricks and sorcery can use to get around Counterspell:
They Can't CS What They Cant See
Subtle Spell metamagic
Aberrant Mind Sorcerer: Psionic Spells (lvl 6)
Old Fashioned Teamwork
Outrange Them
I read this thread and didn't see the following come up: Is it possible the DM is playing around your character due to power level? From the way you describe the other characters, it kind of sounds like you are more effective than the rest of your party by an order of magnitude. It's pretty easy to connect the narrative dots from there. BBEG sees that the sorcerer is the biggest problem and so they take steps to mitigate that problem. That's not a case of the DM playing to win, that's a case of the DM playing villains with depth and adaptability.
As someone who pretty consistently has the most powerful character at my tables, I get your frustration, but it might be worth considering that the frequency of counterspells is not meant to dampen your fun rather it's meant to enhance the fun of your tablemates. I could be wrong, of course, but nothing you're saying so far discounts this possibility.
" 'I counterspell your counterspell' is really lame for gameplay." - I don't see why this is lame? As a DM, it seems fun(ny), and the players seem to enjoy it when they can do this. Am I missing something?
Seeing as this thread is nearly 4 years old and 2024 making changes to the number/type of spells you can cast per turn, it would be good to note that without a readied action or non-spell slot using spell feature, you could only do this to push a cantrip through... and I doubt there would be many situations where that tradeoff is worth it.
Since the restriction applies to spells cast with spell slots, enemies like the Mage are free to counter an attempt to counter their level 4 Fireball. That typed, they don't have spell slots to recover if countered; whereas the player character does.