RAW, you can counterspell someone’s counterspell. However, this feels kind of annoying, as both casters would continue to counterspell each other’s counterspells until out of slots, with neither actually negating each other’s spells, and it just feels kind of like a waste of slots. My players going to encounter some mages tonight, and they’ve never actually encountered casters with counterspell at a level that they can cast counterspell too, so I feel like there will be a lot of complaints ("I counterspell his blight." "Great. He counterspells your counterspell" "That’s not fair!"), and a I feel that both me (the DM) and the players will end up feeling rather unsatisfied. I have seen several DMs just ruling that counterspell can’t be counterspelled, and I’ve never heard any players complain, simply because it never occurred to them that you can counterspell another counterspell in the middle of your turn. My real question is, will not allowing counterspells to be counterspelled break the game?
RAW, you can counterspell someone’s counterspell. However, this feels kind of annoying, as both casters would continue to counterspell each other’s counterspells until out of slots, with neither actually negating each other’s spells, and it just feels kind of like a waste of slots.
No, it does not because you are limited by the fact that it uses your reaction. So it's at most one exchange, if there are two adversaries, you can only protect your initial spell.
My players going to encounter some mages tonight, and they’ve never acually encountered casters with counterspell at a level that they can cast counterspell too, so I feel like there will be a lot of complaints ("I counterspell his blight." "Great. He counterspells your counterspell" "That’s not fair!"), and a I feel that both me (the DM) and the players will end up feeling rather unsatisfied. I have seen several DMs just ruling that counterspell can’t be counterspelled, and I’ve never heard any players complain, simply because it never occurred to them that you can counterspell another counterspell in the middle of your turn. My real question is, will not allowing counterspells to be counterspelled break the game?
No, it doesn't, in addition to spell slots, the fact that they use reaction limits the usage anyway.
Just use the tactic, and your players will catch the drift, the major problem that will probably have is that once they have taken the tactic for their own, because of the action economy, there will probably be more casters in the PC groups than in the NPCs/Monsters, meaning that it might be hard for some of your NPCs to get spells off. There are ways around this, of course, like not being seen casting spells, and having lower level counterspellers with the BBEG, it's just that it needs a bit of work.
Just for the record, we have a similar mechanic in our LARP games, have had it for almost 35 years now and despite the fact that it does not have a limit on "reaction", it works great and allows tactics like firing a small spell in the hope that it will be counterspelled instead of the next big one, or having some casters on counterspell watch, etc.
Actually, we only have one caster in the party, so the reason I was posting this was cause the poor caster will be practically useless in the fight, and with the number one damage dealer negated, the party will be very, very, dead, as there is still a couple other mages who can cast fireball to deal with.
Countering conterspell is fine, but remember spell level.
Conterspell is automatic for spells of 3rd level or lower. Above 3rd level you need to roll.
UNLESS you cast using a higher spell level, in which case, you auto for that higher level.
If you can cast a higher level slot than your opponent, and you are 1 on 1, often it makes sense to do this:
5th level bad guy casts fireball.
7th level hero counters at 4th level.
5th level bad guy tries to counter at 3rd, rolls poorly and fails.
Even if he succeeds, 5th level bad guy has cast both of his 3rd level spells, leaving him with only 1st and 2nd. But 7th level good guy has cast only a single 4th level. He is now free to fireball himself, three times.
Actually, we only have one caster in the party, so the reason I was posting this was cause the poor caster will be practically useless in the fight, and with the number one damage dealer negated, the party will be very, very, dead, as there is still a couple other mages who can cast fireball to deal with.
What level is the party and how many of them are there? Mages are CR6 and you say they will be fighting "some" which I take to be a minuimum of 3. That is almost deadly for a party or 4 level 11s.
As counterspell uses a reaction not only can they not use it more than once per round they also can not use their reaction for anything else such as casting shield. By negating the damage of one member of the party they open themselves up to damage from the rest of the party.
Mages are glass cannons with a +1 weapon and a +5 modifier the martial players will hit 75% of the time (assuming mage armor is on). A level 11 fighter has 3 attacks doing an average of about 11 damage each, A rogues seak attack will do about 30 damage.If the mage uses their reaction to counterspell they will be unable to cast shield and the martial characters will be able to take them out very quickly (given their average 40HP). At that sort of level the party can withstand a few fireballs
Even if all the spell caster does is get his spells countered so the rest of the party can attack the AC 15 mage (insterad of the AC 20 mage if he casts shield) he is helping significantly in the fight.
If you have a monk in the party they will love fighting mages with their +0 Con save against stunnng strike
RAW, you can counterspell someone’s counterspell. However, this feels kind of annoying, as both casters would continue to counterspell each other’s counterspells
RAW, counterspell gives you no knowledge of what spell is being cast. RAW, to determine what spell someone else is casting takes a reaction, which one then cannot use to cast counterspell. So my question #1 is, how does the guy casting counterspell know that the other mage is also casting it? He can't ID it -- he already used his reaction to cast counterspell.
You need to work this sort of thing out with your players ahead of time, so everyone is clear how it works and no one feels burned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Actually, we only have one caster in the party, so the reason I was posting this was cause the poor caster will be practically useless in the fight, and with the number one damage dealer negated, the party will be very, very, dead, as there is still a couple other mages who can cast fireball to deal with.
What level is the party and how many of them are there? Mages are CR6 and you say they will be fighting "some" which I take to be a minuimum of 3. That is almost deadly for a party or 4 level 11s.
As counterspell uses a reaction not only can they not use it more than once per round they also can not use their reaction for anything else such as casting shield. By negating the damage of one member of the party they open themselves up to damage from the rest of the party.
Mages are glass cannons with a +1 weapon and a +5 modifier the martial players will hit 75% of the time (assuming mage armor is on). A level 11 fighter has 3 attacks doing an average of about 11 damage each, A rogues seak attack will do about 30 damage.If the mage uses their reaction to counterspell they will be unable to cast shield and the martial characters will be able to take them out very quickly (given their average 40HP). At that sort of level the party can withstand a few fireballs
Even if all the spell caster does is get his spells countered so the rest of the party can attack the AC 15 mage (insterad of the AC 20 mage if he casts shield) he is helping significantly in the fight.
If you have a monk in the party they will love fighting mages with their +0 Con save against stunnng strike
The mages are actually homebrewed and much weaker then the mage in the MM. The party is 7th level.
1) Casting counterspell uses your reaction so both you and any NPCs can only cast it once. There is no chain of counterspells between two casters that just uses up spell slots. If the NPC or the PC already used their reaction on something like shield then they can't cast counterspell. Similarly, if they cast counterspell they can't later cast shield.
2) Counterspell is S only which means that a caster can't use it if they they have an item in both hands unless they also have warcaster.
For example, a caster using a shield in one hand casts a fireball which has an M component so their other hand has an arcane focus or material component. Unless this caster has war caster they can not cast counterspell because they don't have a free hand.
3) Counterspell is on both the Mage and Archmage NPC spell lists but the DM can decide to remove it if they like. However, NPCs may decide not to cast it since they do not know what the PC is casting and may decide to retain their reaction to cast shield. Using counterspell on a cantrip for example feels like a waste of a spell but neither the PC nor the NPCs should know what spell is being cast when the decision to counterspell is being made. Managing an encounter is up to the DM and deciding whether a counterspell duel will develop is similarly up to the DM.
P.S. In my play/DM experience, allowing counterspell of counterspell has never been a problem.
RAW, you can counterspell someone’s counterspell. However, this feels kind of annoying, as both casters would continue to counterspell each other’s counterspells
RAW, counterspell gives you no knowledge of what spell is being cast. RAW, to determine what spell someone else is casting takes a reaction, which one then cannot use to cast counterspell. So my question #1 is, how does the guy casting counterspell know that the other mage is also casting it? He can't ID it -- he already used his reaction to cast counterspell.
You need to work this sort of thing out with your players ahead of time, so everyone is clear how it works and no one feels burned.
Well, it is kind of obvious when someone counterspells your spell, and with both sides counterspelling each other’s counterspells, the main spells being cast will be unaffected, which kind of feels like a waste of slots.
1) Casting counterspell uses your reaction so both you and any NPCs can only cast it once. There is no chain of counterspells between two casters that just uses up spell slots. If the NPC or the PC already used their reaction on something like shield then they can't cast counterspell. Similarly, if they cast counterspell they can't later cast shield.
2) Counterspell is S only which means that a caster can't use it if they they have an item in both hands unless they also have warcaster.
For example, a caster using a shield in one hand casts a fireball which has an M component so their other hand has an arcane focus or material component. Unless this caster has war caster they can not cast counterspell because they don't have a free hand.
3) Counterspell is on both the Mage and Archmage NPC spell lists but the DM can decide to remove it if they like. However, NPCs may decide not to cast it since they do not know what the PC is casting and may decide to retain their reaction to cast shield. Using counterspell on a cantrip for example feels like a waste of a spell but neither the PC nor the NPCs should know what spell is being cast when the decision to counterspell is being made. Managing an encounter is up to the DM and deciding whether a counterspell duel will develop is similarly up to the DM.
Since this battle is ranged and most spells involved require saves, and all casters involved are wizards, both sides have nothing to use there reactions on except counterspell, and I’m trying to avoid a chain of counterspells with no main spells affected. Also, I describe the spell being cast before the player counters it, so yes, it is rather obvious whether a spell is worth countering. PS I’m the DM
Since this battle is ranged and most spells involved require saves, and all casters involved are wizards, both sides have nothing to use there reactions on except counterspell, and I’m trying to avoid a chain of counterspells with no main spells affected. Also, I describe the spell being cast before the player counters it, so yes, it is rather obvious whether a spell is worth countering. PS I’m the DM
You say the party only has one caster so I assume the rest of the party will be firing arrows at the group of mages. This meand they might want to use their reactions to cast shield. They may also want ot use absorb elements.
You say the battle is ranged, you don't say it there is a way for the combatants to move closer together or further apart or how far apart they are. Counterspell has a range of 60ft so if the caster moves more than 60ft away then any spell thay cast (for example fireball which has a range of 150 ft) can not be countered (when they might wish they had a reaction for absorb elements).
Since this battle is ranged and most spells involved require saves, and all casters involved are wizards, both sides have nothing to use there reactions on except counterspell, and I’m trying to avoid a chain of counterspells with no main spells affected. Also, I describe the spell being cast before the player counters it, so yes, it is rather obvious whether a spell is worth countering. PS I’m the DM
You say the party only has one caster so I assume the rest of the party will be firing arrows at the group of mages. This meand they might want to use their reactions to cast shield. They may also want ot use absorb elements.
You say the battle is ranged, you don't say it there is a way for the combatants to move closer together or further apart or how far apart they are. Counterspell has a range of 60ft so if the caster moves more than 60ft away then any spell thay cast (for example fireball which has a range of 150 ft) can not be countered (when they might wish they had a reaction for absorb elements).
You know what, I didn’t even give the opposing mages absorb elements! In hindsight, I probably should have. The party also stinks at range, the fighter just has javelins and the rogue a hand crossbow, so it probably isn’t worth it to cast shield. In my OP, I was just wondering if not allowing counterspell to be countered would break the game. I probably should have worded it in a simpler manner instead of rambling about encounter examples, people (read: me) feeling unsatisfied, etc. Thanks for answering!
RAW, you can counterspell someone’s counterspell. However, this feels kind of annoying, as both casters would continue to counterspell each other’s counterspells until out of slots, with neither actually negating each other’s spells, and it just feels kind of like a waste of slots. My players going to encounter some mages tonight, and they’ve never actually encountered casters with counterspell at a level that they can cast counterspell too, so I feel like there will be a lot of complaints ("I counterspell his blight." "Great. He counterspells your counterspell" "That’s not fair!"), and a I feel that both me (the DM) and the players will end up feeling rather unsatisfied. I have seen several DMs just ruling that counterspell can’t be counterspelled, and I’ve never heard any players complain, simply because it never occurred to them that you can counterspell another counterspell in the middle of your turn. My real question is, will not allowing counterspells to be counterspelled break the game?
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
Actually, we only have one caster in the party, so the reason I was posting this was cause the poor caster will be practically useless in the fight, and with the number one damage dealer negated, the party will be very, very, dead, as there is still a couple other mages who can cast fireball to deal with.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
Countering conterspell is fine, but remember spell level.
Conterspell is automatic for spells of 3rd level or lower. Above 3rd level you need to roll.
UNLESS you cast using a higher spell level, in which case, you auto for that higher level.
If you can cast a higher level slot than your opponent, and you are 1 on 1, often it makes sense to do this:
Even if he succeeds, 5th level bad guy has cast both of his 3rd level spells, leaving him with only 1st and 2nd. But 7th level good guy has cast only a single 4th level. He is now free to fireball himself, three times.
What level is the party and how many of them are there? Mages are CR6 and you say they will be fighting "some" which I take to be a minuimum of 3. That is almost deadly for a party or 4 level 11s.
As counterspell uses a reaction not only can they not use it more than once per round they also can not use their reaction for anything else such as casting shield. By negating the damage of one member of the party they open themselves up to damage from the rest of the party.
Mages are glass cannons with a +1 weapon and a +5 modifier the martial players will hit 75% of the time (assuming mage armor is on). A level 11 fighter has 3 attacks doing an average of about 11 damage each, A rogues seak attack will do about 30 damage.If the mage uses their reaction to counterspell they will be unable to cast shield and the martial characters will be able to take them out very quickly (given their average 40HP). At that sort of level the party can withstand a few fireballs
Even if all the spell caster does is get his spells countered so the rest of the party can attack the AC 15 mage (insterad of the AC 20 mage if he casts shield) he is helping significantly in the fight.
If you have a monk in the party they will love fighting mages with their +0 Con save against stunnng strike
RAW, counterspell gives you no knowledge of what spell is being cast. RAW, to determine what spell someone else is casting takes a reaction, which one then cannot use to cast counterspell. So my question #1 is, how does the guy casting counterspell know that the other mage is also casting it? He can't ID it -- he already used his reaction to cast counterspell.
You need to work this sort of thing out with your players ahead of time, so everyone is clear how it works and no one feels burned.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The mages are actually homebrewed and much weaker then the mage in the MM. The party is 7th level.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
I think the other posters covered most of it.
1) Casting counterspell uses your reaction so both you and any NPCs can only cast it once. There is no chain of counterspells between two casters that just uses up spell slots. If the NPC or the PC already used their reaction on something like shield then they can't cast counterspell. Similarly, if they cast counterspell they can't later cast shield.
2) Counterspell is S only which means that a caster can't use it if they they have an item in both hands unless they also have warcaster.
For example, a caster using a shield in one hand casts a fireball which has an M component so their other hand has an arcane focus or material component. Unless this caster has war caster they can not cast counterspell because they don't have a free hand.
3) Counterspell is on both the Mage and Archmage NPC spell lists but the DM can decide to remove it if they like. However, NPCs may decide not to cast it since they do not know what the PC is casting and may decide to retain their reaction to cast shield. Using counterspell on a cantrip for example feels like a waste of a spell but neither the PC nor the NPCs should know what spell is being cast when the decision to counterspell is being made. Managing an encounter is up to the DM and deciding whether a counterspell duel will develop is similarly up to the DM.
P.S. In my play/DM experience, allowing counterspell of counterspell has never been a problem.
Well, it is kind of obvious when someone counterspells your spell, and with both sides counterspelling each other’s counterspells, the main spells being cast will be unaffected, which kind of feels like a waste of slots.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
Since this battle is ranged and most spells involved require saves, and all casters involved are wizards, both sides have nothing to use there reactions on except counterspell, and I’m trying to avoid a chain of counterspells with no main spells affected. Also, I describe the spell being cast before the player counters it, so yes, it is rather obvious whether a spell is worth countering. PS I’m the DM
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
You say the party only has one caster so I assume the rest of the party will be firing arrows at the group of mages. This meand they might want to use their reactions to cast shield. They may also want ot use absorb elements.
You say the battle is ranged, you don't say it there is a way for the combatants to move closer together or further apart or how far apart they are. Counterspell has a range of 60ft so if the caster moves more than 60ft away then any spell thay cast (for example fireball which has a range of 150 ft) can not be countered (when they might wish they had a reaction for absorb elements).
You know what, I didn’t even give the opposing mages absorb elements! In hindsight, I probably should have. The party also stinks at range, the fighter just has javelins and the rogue a hand crossbow, so it probably isn’t worth it to cast shield. In my OP, I was just wondering if not allowing counterspell to be countered would break the game. I probably should have worded it in a simpler manner instead of rambling about encounter examples, people (read: me) feeling unsatisfied, etc. Thanks for answering!
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig