Before Counterspell can be cast, require the caster to know the spell that is actually being cast. So, by Xanathar's:
If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren’t associated with any class when they’re cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.
So, Counterspell is now gated, it won't always be available to counter the spell. I would also require the caster state the level of the spell that the caster is trying to detect before the roll is made to identify. Why? If the player can see the roll, they would then know what level of spell they could cast and not have the spell be identified.
Eh, there are lots of ways of making counterspell less obnoxious. The basic problem is that a no-save reaction 'make your opponent's action totally useless' is excessive. I'd probably just make it something like:
Counterspell
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The target creature must save with their spellcasting stat, with advantage if the spell is higher level than the counterspell, or have their casting disrupted.
They've already started to apply a fix to make Counterspell less useful. They are changing the monster stat blocks to have magical Actions instead of spellcasting.
Older versions of D&D had a rule that allowed you to cast the same spell as the target in order to cancel their spell casting. I guess Counterspell was introduced to make that much simpler since that old rule was so niche as to make it almost useless (you had to know the same spell as the opponent spellcaster).
The opponent losing their action isn't so different from a melee combatant using Sentinel (or similar) to stop an enemy moving away - the enemy's movement is lost, making their actions for the rest of their turn a lot less useful (attack the sentinel).
(I'm not sure why this is in the DMG section rather than the homebrew section.)
The opponent losing their action isn't so different from a melee combatant using Sentinel (or similar) to stop an enemy moving away - the enemy's movement is lost, making their actions for the rest of their turn a lot less useful (attack the sentinel).
I think the difference between the two is crucial. Sentinel only restricts your choices - you still get to take your action and roll some dice. CS essentially means your turn is over, you did nothing, and you lost a spell slot - likely a good one.
The opponent losing their action isn't so different from a melee combatant using Sentinel (or similar) to stop an enemy moving away - the enemy's movement is lost, making their actions for the rest of their turn a lot less useful (attack the sentinel).
The equivalence in potency would be if Counterspell gave disadvantage on attacks or advantage on saves, rather than totally negating.
Hence the change to being allowed to cast CS with a gate. If you cast a higher level spell it makes it harder to identify the spell to be allowed to cast counterspell in the first place. It doesn't remove counterspell from the game, it just makes it where counterspell isn't always allowed to be cast. It also makes it harder to counter the counterspell. It makes having a high arcana fairly important to use counterspell, something for bards or paladin subclass that gets access to the spell to think about.
They've already started to apply a fix to make Counterspell less useful. They are changing the monster stat blocks to have magical Actions instead of spellcasting.
Older versions of D&D had a rule that allowed you to cast the same spell as the target in order to cancel their spell casting. I guess Counterspell was introduced to make that much simpler since that old rule was so niche as to make it almost useless (you had to know the same spell as the opponent spellcaster).
The opponent losing their action isn't so different from a melee combatant using Sentinel (or similar) to stop an enemy moving away - the enemy's movement is lost, making their actions for the rest of their turn a lot less useful (attack the sentinel).
(I'm not sure why this is in the DMG section rather than the homebrew section.)
I've seen some previews of the changes and by looking at it , it will in some cases make counter spell better. There's no longer a distinction between innate and class spell casting in monsters. Innate spell casting used to be uncounterable because it has no components for you to see and trigger counterspell. where as now it's just spell casting so some creatures who were previously uncounterable now are.
The cases where it has replaced spell casting they typically replaced them with things that are more like cantrips or attacks than leveled spells and casters now have a small list of usually 5 or so leveled spells. So the stuff that is now abilities as opposed to spells are not things you want to counter, they're the equivalent to like a single beam of eldritch blast and many casters now have multi attack shooting multiple of those beams a round instead of using a cantrip.
They've already started to apply a fix to make Counterspell less useful. They are changing the monster stat blocks to have magical Actions instead of spellcasting.
Older versions of D&D had a rule that allowed you to cast the same spell as the target in order to cancel their spell casting. I guess Counterspell was introduced to make that much simpler since that old rule was so niche as to make it almost useless (you had to know the same spell as the opponent spellcaster).
The opponent losing their action isn't so different from a melee combatant using Sentinel (or similar) to stop an enemy moving away - the enemy's movement is lost, making their actions for the rest of their turn a lot less useful (attack the sentinel).
(I'm not sure why this is in the DMG section rather than the homebrew section.)
I've seen some previews of the changes and by looking at it , it will in some cases make counter spell better. There's no longer a distinction between innate and class spell casting in monsters. Innate spell casting used to be uncounterable because it has no components for you to see and trigger counterspell. where as now it's just spell casting so some creatures who were previously uncounterable now are.
Innate spellcasting has always been no material components, not no components, and thus typically counterable.
They've already started to apply a fix to make Counterspell less useful. They are changing the monster stat blocks to have magical Actions instead of spellcasting.
Older versions of D&D had a rule that allowed you to cast the same spell as the target in order to cancel their spell casting. I guess Counterspell was introduced to make that much simpler since that old rule was so niche as to make it almost useless (you had to know the same spell as the opponent spellcaster).
The opponent losing their action isn't so different from a melee combatant using Sentinel (or similar) to stop an enemy moving away - the enemy's movement is lost, making their actions for the rest of their turn a lot less useful (attack the sentinel).
(I'm not sure why this is in the DMG section rather than the homebrew section.)
I've seen some previews of the changes and by looking at it , it will in some cases make counter spell better. There's no longer a distinction between innate and class spell casting in monsters. Innate spell casting used to be uncounterable because it has no components for you to see and trigger counterspell. where as now it's just spell casting so some creatures who were previously uncounterable now are.
Innate spellcasting has always been no material components, not no components, and thus typically counterable.
Innate varies I mean they no longer seem to have have those stipulations at all
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Before Counterspell can be cast, require the caster to know the spell that is actually being cast. So, by Xanathar's:
So, Counterspell is now gated, it won't always be available to counter the spell. I would also require the caster state the level of the spell that the caster is trying to detect before the roll is made to identify. Why? If the player can see the roll, they would then know what level of spell they could cast and not have the spell be identified.
Eh, there are lots of ways of making counterspell less obnoxious. The basic problem is that a no-save reaction 'make your opponent's action totally useless' is excessive. I'd probably just make it something like:
They've already started to apply a fix to make Counterspell less useful. They are changing the monster stat blocks to have magical Actions instead of spellcasting.
Older versions of D&D had a rule that allowed you to cast the same spell as the target in order to cancel their spell casting. I guess Counterspell was introduced to make that much simpler since that old rule was so niche as to make it almost useless (you had to know the same spell as the opponent spellcaster).
The opponent losing their action isn't so different from a melee combatant using Sentinel (or similar) to stop an enemy moving away - the enemy's movement is lost, making their actions for the rest of their turn a lot less useful (attack the sentinel).
(I'm not sure why this is in the DMG section rather than the homebrew section.)
I think the difference between the two is crucial. Sentinel only restricts your choices - you still get to take your action and roll some dice. CS essentially means your turn is over, you did nothing, and you lost a spell slot - likely a good one.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The equivalence in potency would be if Counterspell gave disadvantage on attacks or advantage on saves, rather than totally negating.
Hence the change to being allowed to cast CS with a gate. If you cast a higher level spell it makes it harder to identify the spell to be allowed to cast counterspell in the first place. It doesn't remove counterspell from the game, it just makes it where counterspell isn't always allowed to be cast. It also makes it harder to counter the counterspell. It makes having a high arcana fairly important to use counterspell, something for bards or paladin subclass that gets access to the spell to think about.
I've seen some previews of the changes and by looking at it , it will in some cases make counter spell better. There's no longer a distinction between innate and class spell casting in monsters. Innate spell casting used to be uncounterable because it has no components for you to see and trigger counterspell. where as now it's just spell casting so some creatures who were previously uncounterable now are.
The cases where it has replaced spell casting they typically replaced them with things that are more like cantrips or attacks than leveled spells and casters now have a small list of usually 5 or so leveled spells. So the stuff that is now abilities as opposed to spells are not things you want to counter, they're the equivalent to like a single beam of eldritch blast and many casters now have multi attack shooting multiple of those beams a round instead of using a cantrip.
Innate spellcasting has always been no material components, not no components, and thus typically counterable.
Innate varies I mean they no longer seem to have have those stipulations at all