In one of my latest games I have put the players up against a spellcaster that has the spell Counterspell prepared. This was done to oppose the party's spellcaster and to no longer have the party's rely on that person's fireball's.
In the few rounds this spellcaster was alive he managed to counterspell this player once before being targeted by the party and taken down. Even tho the player who got counterspelled told me that It was a bad decision of mine to have his spell be counterspelled because now he basically had to "skip a round".
Am I a bad dungeon master for doing that? Is it a bad choice to put enemy's against the party that specifically nullifies a strategy the party rely's on?
No, it's pretty fair play for you to use spells that both you and your player have access to. Your player, if they had Counterspell, could have used their reaction to counter the first Counterspell and have their Fireball go off. Sure, it would have essentially cost them two spell slots to get of the spell, but it would be their choice to do that or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I bet that party's spellcaster is going to start looking into how to protect their magic from now on. Maybe a silence spell or preparing counterspell themselves.
I bet that party's spellcaster is going to start looking into how to protect their magic from now on. Maybe a silence spell or preparing counterspell themselves.
Not really they are kind of one-element focussed. And mostly damage only.
Nothing wrong with doing that at all. Your spellcaster NPC has to burn a 3rd level spell slot and their reaction that round to do so. In the future your player can either get counterspell themselves, or upcast their spells if they're worried about it getting counterspelled easily.
Absolutely not. You did fine, and in fact the Party should start getting use to opponents with Counterspell as well as Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field... It's good for their development, moral character, and character rerolling skills. ;)
You're just presenting an opportunity for the players to vary their strategies. Nothing wrong with that.
It would be unfair if you gave the NPC unlimited counterspell and just shut down the caster whenever they try to do anything, or if suddenly *every* enemy had counterspell. But as it is, I just see an enemy spending a resource to avoid damage.
Not to mention, your caster has not, as they might think, wasted their turn. As spells are a considerable resource, if you cause them to use a spell slot, then that's one less spell they can use against you that they instead had to use protecting themselves. You're still fulfilling a role in that fight even if it doesn't involve rolling gazillions of dice on a big spell right off the bat.
Next time you hear "what a waste of a turn" from a counter spelled caster, remind them that that's one less counterspell the enemy has.
I also would like to add that counterspell can be tricky. Neither your NPC's nor the PC's should have meta knowledge of what spells are being cast, yet this is often the case. Your player says "I cast Fireball," or you say "The Evil Wizard casts [whatever]," and then one or the other decides to counterspell. You and your players know what spells are being cast, but the characters themselves shouldn't. Counterspell is supposed to come with the risk/reward system of not knowing what spell is being cast; indeed, XgtE has optional rules for using your reaction to identify what spell a spellcaster is in the process of casting. This would obviously mean you can't then use your reaction to counterspell it.
What I do in my games - at least once players unlock level 3 spells and counterspell actually starts becoming a thing - is have both myself and my players just say "I am going to cast a spell." That is your/their chance to counterspell if you/they so wish. If no one does, then you say what the spell is, and now it's too late to counterspell it. I make the odd exception when it's a spell the player/npc would definitely know - such as if it's a spell they can cast, being cast from someone who uses the same "flavor" of magic (wizard who has fireball seeing another wizard cast fireball, for example,) but that's rare.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with NPCs counterspelling the player's spells. It is part of the game. Enemies have many of the same abilities as the players. Counterspell takes a third level slot and likely means that the NPC will cast one less fireball. To be honest, having counterspell cast is one of the risks of being a wizard. Make sure to have counterspell also prepared so if the NPC tries to counterspell an important spell then you can cast counterspell yourself to stop it.
Having a player complain that an NPC was able to counterspell them is just whining. Have a little chat with the player that there will be NPCs who have abilities that will prevent the players from doing things. In addition, how is counterspell stopping a spell from going off any different from an NPC casting hold person and causing a player to lose their turn because they are held. The DM is not constrained to having the NPCs use only spells that do damage and don't interfere with what a player can do on a turn.
Some good examples -
- hypnotic pattern
- banish
- hold person
Landing any of these could result in a player losing their turn ... sometimes multiple turns. That is all part of the game and the party needs to learn how to mitigate and deal with these challenges. Intelligent opponents don't limit themselves to swinging swords and casting fireball.
I've had this discussion recently with the players in my new campaign. I was thinking about removing the spell from the game because it did seem unfair to me. Wizards really only do one thing — cast spells — and counterspell is basically telling a player "nope, you can't actually do anything this round."
My players convinced me to keep the spell in, for the following reasons. First, counterspell takes a spell slot and a reaction, both of which are valuable and limited. Second, we are using the counterspell blind rules, so casting counterspell is always a risk. Finally, the players enjoyed using it to shut down enemy casters and were ok to have it come back the other way (they are all great on the idea that if PCs can do it, so can NPCs).
I bet that party's spellcaster is going to start looking into how to protect their magic from now on. Maybe a silence spell or preparing counterspell themselves.
Not really they are kind of one-element focussed. And mostly damage only.
Well from now on they know that isn't optimal, and if they don't adjust their strategy that's on them.
Not in the slightest, its not as if you hand of god killed a PC because the player annoyed you, you just ratcheted up the tension of an encounter. Part of your role as the DM is to make the world fun, challenging, and compelling. Making combat challenging by stacking up enemies to nullify some of your PC's abilities is no different than just using different types of monsters - it provides more variety, and it incentivizes the players to be more creative.
Do all your players feel this way? If the one player was grumpy about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the other players felt that was a cool moment either from a narrative perspective or because it allowed the rest of them to be more impactful. If your players can do something then of course there are NPCs in the world that can do the same or often better. If there was no way the PCs could be defeated or challenged then what is the point of the campaign?
Like Jaysburn said.... the N/PC's don't know what spell is coming, so if they're casting counterspell, they should be doing it without knowing whats coming. As far as "is it fair" or "are you a bad dungeon master"? For me, the question comes down to "is it reasonable for the bad guy to have done that/have that prepared/know that spell". I was itching so bad to give a shaman "Heat Metal" to screw with one of my players metal/stone warforged. But was it reasonable that the NPC would have known that spell? Hell no. So I didn't. The barbarian misses his attacks. Is it reasonable for the NPC's to NOT attack back so his rage drops off? No, it's not. We bang on about players metagaming and then do it all the time with our own NPC's. I once had my party get into a staged brawl in a tavern to gauge their abilities. The thieves guild was planning to kill them all, and wanted to know as much about their abilities as possible so threw a bunch of low level lackeys to get into a rumble and find out what was up. they also planted a lady to get close to them and hear stories about their adventures to get more intel. And then they planned an ambush based on the knowledge they had. They knew the sorcerer was a pyromaniac, so they lured them into a warehouse that had sheets doused in oil all over the joint and barrels filled with oil. Any flame spells and the whole place would go kaboom. They knew the barbarian was huge damage, so they used range. put people in the rafters where he couldn't get to them quickly. Now, I could have just done all of this, but it would have been meta up the wazoo without the buildup. ALSO, it made it a much more satisfying encounter for everyone when they figured out how nefarious the plot had been.
I've also always played with 'open knowledge' on both ends about what spells are being cast. I don't want to make casting a spell a two-step process ("I cast a spell... does it get countered? No? The spell was X") for the entire campaign on the off-chance that there's a counterspell that plays out a bit differently once in a while.
However, you could start having combat in more confined spaces or when you are doing combat outside don't clump your monsters together. You can negate the power of a fireball by setting it up so that they can only hit one or 2 at a time. And only clump them together when they are hand to hand.
In one of my latest games I have put the players up against a spellcaster that has the spell Counterspell prepared. This was done to oppose the party's spellcaster and to no longer have the party's rely on that person's fireball's.
In the few rounds this spellcaster was alive he managed to counterspell this player once before being targeted by the party and taken down. Even tho the player who got counterspelled told me that It was a bad decision of mine to have his spell be counterspelled because now he basically had to "skip a round".
Am I a bad dungeon master for doing that? Is it a bad choice to put enemy's against the party that specifically nullifies a strategy the party rely's on?
No. This is common sense DM’ing.
d&d was not designed (with the intent), for players to do the exact same thing, every single time.
counterspell is good.
spellcasting absorb elements for Fire is good. Things with fire resistance/immunity.
etc etc.
if your sorcerer is crying. Well. He does have other spells in theory. And nothing is stopping him from having other ways of being effective except his own personal choices.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blank
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dear dungeon masters,
In one of my latest games I have put the players up against a spellcaster that has the spell Counterspell prepared. This was done to oppose the party's spellcaster and to no longer have the party's rely on that person's fireball's.
In the few rounds this spellcaster was alive he managed to counterspell this player once before being targeted by the party and taken down. Even tho the player who got counterspelled told me that It was a bad decision of mine to have his spell be counterspelled because now he basically had to "skip a round".
Am I a bad dungeon master for doing that?
Is it a bad choice to put enemy's against the party that specifically nullifies a strategy the party rely's on?
No, it's pretty fair play for you to use spells that both you and your player have access to. Your player, if they had Counterspell, could have used their reaction to counter the first Counterspell and have their Fireball go off. Sure, it would have essentially cost them two spell slots to get of the spell, but it would be their choice to do that or not.
Being counterspelled is no more skipping a round than a fighter missing is skipping a round.
I bet that party's spellcaster is going to start looking into how to protect their magic from now on. Maybe a silence spell or preparing counterspell themselves.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
Always challenge your players. Being disappointed at 'skipping a round' is a weird complaint for a TTRPG. It's not like you're playing Uno.
Not really they are kind of one-element focussed. And mostly damage only.
Nothing wrong with doing that at all. Your spellcaster NPC has to burn a 3rd level spell slot and their reaction that round to do so. In the future your player can either get counterspell themselves, or upcast their spells if they're worried about it getting counterspelled easily.
Absolutely not. You did fine, and in fact the Party should start getting use to opponents with Counterspell as well as Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field... It's good for their development, moral character, and character rerolling skills. ;)
You're just presenting an opportunity for the players to vary their strategies. Nothing wrong with that.
It would be unfair if you gave the NPC unlimited counterspell and just shut down the caster whenever they try to do anything, or if suddenly *every* enemy had counterspell. But as it is, I just see an enemy spending a resource to avoid damage.
Not to mention, your caster has not, as they might think, wasted their turn. As spells are a considerable resource, if you cause them to use a spell slot, then that's one less spell they can use against you that they instead had to use protecting themselves. You're still fulfilling a role in that fight even if it doesn't involve rolling gazillions of dice on a big spell right off the bat.
Next time you hear "what a waste of a turn" from a counter spelled caster, remind them that that's one less counterspell the enemy has.
I also would like to add that counterspell can be tricky. Neither your NPC's nor the PC's should have meta knowledge of what spells are being cast, yet this is often the case.
Your player says "I cast Fireball," or you say "The Evil Wizard casts [whatever]," and then one or the other decides to counterspell. You and your players know what spells are being cast, but the characters themselves shouldn't. Counterspell is supposed to come with the risk/reward system of not knowing what spell is being cast; indeed, XgtE has optional rules for using your reaction to identify what spell a spellcaster is in the process of casting. This would obviously mean you can't then use your reaction to counterspell it.
What I do in my games - at least once players unlock level 3 spells and counterspell actually starts becoming a thing - is have both myself and my players just say "I am going to cast a spell." That is your/their chance to counterspell if you/they so wish. If no one does, then you say what the spell is, and now it's too late to counterspell it. I make the odd exception when it's a spell the player/npc would definitely know - such as if it's a spell they can cast, being cast from someone who uses the same "flavor" of magic (wizard who has fireball seeing another wizard cast fireball, for example,) but that's rare.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with NPCs counterspelling the player's spells. It is part of the game. Enemies have many of the same abilities as the players. Counterspell takes a third level slot and likely means that the NPC will cast one less fireball. To be honest, having counterspell cast is one of the risks of being a wizard. Make sure to have counterspell also prepared so if the NPC tries to counterspell an important spell then you can cast counterspell yourself to stop it.
Having a player complain that an NPC was able to counterspell them is just whining. Have a little chat with the player that there will be NPCs who have abilities that will prevent the players from doing things. In addition, how is counterspell stopping a spell from going off any different from an NPC casting hold person and causing a player to lose their turn because they are held. The DM is not constrained to having the NPCs use only spells that do damage and don't interfere with what a player can do on a turn.
Some good examples -
- hypnotic pattern
- banish
- hold person
Landing any of these could result in a player losing their turn ... sometimes multiple turns. That is all part of the game and the party needs to learn how to mitigate and deal with these challenges. Intelligent opponents don't limit themselves to swinging swords and casting fireball.
I've had this discussion recently with the players in my new campaign. I was thinking about removing the spell from the game because it did seem unfair to me. Wizards really only do one thing — cast spells — and counterspell is basically telling a player "nope, you can't actually do anything this round."
My players convinced me to keep the spell in, for the following reasons. First, counterspell takes a spell slot and a reaction, both of which are valuable and limited. Second, we are using the counterspell blind rules, so casting counterspell is always a risk. Finally, the players enjoyed using it to shut down enemy casters and were ok to have it come back the other way (they are all great on the idea that if PCs can do it, so can NPCs).
Well from now on they know that isn't optimal, and if they don't adjust their strategy that's on them.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
Not in the slightest, its not as if you hand of god killed a PC because the player annoyed you, you just ratcheted up the tension of an encounter. Part of your role as the DM is to make the world fun, challenging, and compelling. Making combat challenging by stacking up enemies to nullify some of your PC's abilities is no different than just using different types of monsters - it provides more variety, and it incentivizes the players to be more creative.
Do all your players feel this way? If the one player was grumpy about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the other players felt that was a cool moment either from a narrative perspective or because it allowed the rest of them to be more impactful. If your players can do something then of course there are NPCs in the world that can do the same or often better. If there was no way the PCs could be defeated or challenged then what is the point of the campaign?
Like Jaysburn said.... the N/PC's don't know what spell is coming, so if they're casting counterspell, they should be doing it without knowing whats coming. As far as "is it fair" or "are you a bad dungeon master"? For me, the question comes down to "is it reasonable for the bad guy to have done that/have that prepared/know that spell". I was itching so bad to give a shaman "Heat Metal" to screw with one of my players metal/stone warforged. But was it reasonable that the NPC would have known that spell? Hell no. So I didn't. The barbarian misses his attacks. Is it reasonable for the NPC's to NOT attack back so his rage drops off? No, it's not. We bang on about players metagaming and then do it all the time with our own NPC's.
I once had my party get into a staged brawl in a tavern to gauge their abilities. The thieves guild was planning to kill them all, and wanted to know as much about their abilities as possible so threw a bunch of low level lackeys to get into a rumble and find out what was up. they also planted a lady to get close to them and hear stories about their adventures to get more intel. And then they planned an ambush based on the knowledge they had. They knew the sorcerer was a pyromaniac, so they lured them into a warehouse that had sheets doused in oil all over the joint and barrels filled with oil. Any flame spells and the whole place would go kaboom. They knew the barbarian was huge damage, so they used range. put people in the rafters where he couldn't get to them quickly. Now, I could have just done all of this, but it would have been meta up the wazoo without the buildup. ALSO, it made it a much more satisfying encounter for everyone when they figured out how nefarious the plot had been.
Yeah, using counterspell is fine.
I've also always played with 'open knowledge' on both ends about what spells are being cast. I don't want to make casting a spell a two-step process ("I cast a spell... does it get countered? No? The spell was X") for the entire campaign on the off-chance that there's a counterspell that plays out a bit differently once in a while.
Thats legitimate.
However, you could start having combat in more confined spaces or when you are doing combat outside don't clump your monsters together. You can negate the power of a fireball by setting it up so that they can only hit one or 2 at a time. And only clump them together when they are hand to hand.
No. This is common sense DM’ing.
d&d was not designed (with the intent), for players to do the exact same thing, every single time.
counterspell is good.
spellcasting absorb elements for Fire is good. Things with fire resistance/immunity.
etc etc.
if your sorcerer is crying. Well. He does have other spells in theory. And nothing is stopping him from having other ways of being effective except his own personal choices.
Blank