Here's my first stab at creating a replacement for Counterspell intended to be more naturally fun and easy to narrate as a duel. I call it Contest Spell, and it shares a lot in common with Counterspell—spell level, range, trigger, and so on—but the description of the spell reads:
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. Make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC of 15 + the spell’s level; you have advantage on the check if the spell is cast as a class spell and you are a member of that class. If you succeed on the Intelligence (Arcana) check, you identify the spell.
Make another ability check using your spellcasting ability + 4, contested by the target’s spellcasting ability or Intelligence (Arcana) check (the target chooses the ability to use) + the spell’s level. If you have identified the spell, you have advantage on the ability check. If you win the contest, the creature’s spell fails and has no effect.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, add 1 to your spellcasting ability check for each slot level above 3rd.
In my next post in this thread, I'll explain why I thought Counterspell could use a variant, how I expect the spell to work, and how I think it lends itself to being narrated. But before you read that, I'd like to get some feedback while you have fresh eyes. Is the spell description as clear as possible, or is there a clearer way to write it? What is your immediate reaction to Contest Spell? How would you play your character or design your campaign differently if Contest Spell replaced Counterspell?
It seems to combine the optional rule in Xanathar's for Identifying a Spell (doubling the length of text). Some prefer that rule to remain optional so Counterspell is still risky.
Also granting advantage to any caster of Contest Spell for the saving throw diminishes the unique value of Wizard's School of Abjuration feature, Improved Abjuration (adds Proficiency bonus to the ability check of counterspell/dispel magic).
I will probably have to wait for your next post, but it might come down to how people deal with magic ultimately. You might consider making a bonus action spell that let's you use Arcana skill checks freely in a reaction to identify spells instead (thereby trading a bonus action instead of using up a reaction).
Edit: Misread the 15 as a 10 like the normal counter spell. Utterly making my statement erroneous, as this makes the spell harder to use. Still looking forward to the next post for better context.
Here's my first stab at creating a replacement for Counterspell intended to be more naturally fun and easy to narrate as a duel. I call it Contest Spell, and it shares a lot in common with Counterspell—spell level, range, trigger, and so on—but the description of the spell reads:
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. Make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC of 15 + the spell’s level; you have advantage on the check if the spell is cast as a class spell and you are a member of that class. If you succeed on the Intelligence (Arcana) check, you identify the spell.
Make another ability check using your spellcasting ability + 4, contested by the target’s spellcasting ability or Intelligence (Arcana) check (the target chooses the ability to use) + the spell’s level. If you have identified the spell, you have advantage on the ability check. If you win the contest, the creature’s spell fails and has no effect.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, add 1 to your spellcasting ability check for each slot level above 3rd.
In my next post in this thread, I'll explain why I thought Counterspell could use a variant, how I expect the spell to work, and how I think it lends itself to being narrated. But before you read that, I'd like to get some feedback while you have fresh eyes. Is the spell description as clear as possible, or is there a clearer way to write it? What is your immediate reaction to Contest Spell? How would you play your character or design your campaign differently if Contest Spell replaced Counterspell?
Why is this so mechanics heavy and inconsistent?
So let's talk about the math behind this because D&D is based on bonded accuracy. You get Counterspell at level 5 assuming no multiclass, and for the most part, most players don't Counterspell 0(cantrips), 1st and 2nd level spells. So a 3rd level spell is going to need an Arcana Check of 18. Assuming 18 INT at level 5 and a +3 prof modifier, that's a +7. So you have the opportunity to identify the spell first. Cool. You identify it. Less than half the time at the level you get Counter Spell. More often than not once you get INT to 20 and another proficiency bump.
So we get to use your spellcasting ability, INT, and add a +4. Meanwhile, the person who is casting the Spell gets to make an Arcana check, which is a +7. Now the person performing the Counter and using the same spell slot is at an inherent 15% disadvantage. Sure, they get an advantage on the roll if they successfully identified it, but they're going to identify it less than half the time. We already a contest to see if I knew what spell it was, which I fail more often than not, and now I get to fail here too more often than not. What if the creature gets advantage against magical effects? Do they get advantage on this opposed roll here?
I don't like this at all. It takes all the ease out of Counterspell and now makes it just a dice rolling extravaganza. Caster casts spell, now opposed by counter. Opposition rolls one set of dice to determine and then dice off to see who wins. Assuming a loss, NOW the first party finally gets to roll or force saves.
To answer your final question, I'd never take Contest Spell and I'd purposely play a Sorcerer who uses Subtle Spell so you can't perform this Counter Spell mechanic.
There's really only one main reason I wouldn't use it--too many rolls. Counterspell is already risky enough. In 3e, recognizing a spell was required because you need to cast the exact same spell to counterspell it, unless you deliberately use dispel magic for that purpose. In 5e, you're already using a finite resource to prepare counterspell, and most monsters don't even have spellcasting abilities. But under this system, you have a really solid chance of wasting the spell from the get-go, since there's no mention of whether you retain the spell if you fail the initial check. Further, sometimes it's not immediately clear whether a spell is on the character's class list, so you'd end up slowing down the game to work out whether a caster has access to the spell.
And the second roll is bizarre. You get only 4 + your spellcasting ability, which the opponent gets the full benefits of proficiency in arcana AND the level of their spell? It's a very skewed contest.
Part of the fun of Dungeons & Dragons comes from casting imaginary spells to bring down terrible foes. Part of the game’s challenge comes from facing evil wizards that rock the battle with spells. Counterspell drains the fun out of those confrontations. Instead of casting spells, you don’t. Instead of battling against spell effects, nothing happens. [...] For the first time ever, D&D introduced the Counterspell duel. Instead of doing something, dueling spell casters do nothing. Turns out nothing isn’t much fun.
Sly Flourish worked to salvage some fun from Counterspell by adding colorful descriptions. He’s still making chicken salad out of something other than chicken.
DM David preferred to dispense with Counterspell altogether, but I wondered if there wasn't a way to just make countering spells more fun. Partly because I enjoyed Sly Flourish's "colorful descriptions." This kind of confrontation between casters sounds so exciting and filled with dramatic possibility:
Counterspell feels like such a flavorless "nope" spell only because we don't think of it as the antithesis of the spell it's countering. When a PC casts fireball and the mercenary mage casts counterspell, describe it as a whirling windstorm that pulls the fireball into an inferno and launches the vortex up into the clouds. When a PC casts lightning bolt, describe the bolts of red light cast by the enemy lich that smash into it, leaving puddles of molten arcane energy burning on the floor. When a PC casts banishment on your favorite pit fiend, describe the angelic hand that reaches for it through the rift between worlds and then the twisted tentacles that tear into the angelic hand, pulling its skin down to the bone before the hand retreats into the rift with no pit fiend in its grasp.
Counterspell is the opposite reaction to any spell a caster can cast, and it should be described as such. The more powerful the spell being countered, the more powerful the reaction should be.
Unfortunately, this narration isn't justified by the mechanics in 5th Edition. How can a caster conjure the antithesis of a spell without knowing which spell is being cast? Counterspell is merely built around power levels: the spell slots being consumed, and—if your spell slot isn't at least as high as the one the enemy used—a spellcasting ability check based on the spell slot the enemy used. The DM and players know this, so the narration feels hollow or tacked-on.
But what if we could change that? What if we could have duels in which each caster could augment his power by using his knowledge of magic and his quick thinking?
Elements of a fun spell-countering variant
Add it up, and it could be more fun to have a balanced variant of Counterspell in which the countering caster learns which spell is being cast, but preferably adding to the dramatic tension rather than subtracting from it.
There is a way to identify the spell being cast, on page 85 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, as BumkinsMumpkins mentioned: an Arcana check with a DC of 15 + the spell's level, with advantage on the check if the spell is cast as a class spell and you are a member of that class.* But that uses a reaction or action, so you can't do that and then cast Counterspell, unless the spell is taking longer than a turn to cast.
*Heartofjuyomk2 worries that this will slow down the game because you'd need to check whether you have access to that spell, but fortunately, it's simpler than that. The only question is whether the target is casting the spell as a member of a class to which you belong (e.g. a wizard), not whether the wizard spell also happens to be on your spell list as a sorcerer or eldritch knight or whatever. The DM can check, under the creature's spellcasting trait, whether it is casting as a member of a class ("has the following wizard spells prepared") or is using Innate Spellcasting ("can innately cast the following spells").
I didn't want to simply remove the requirement to use a reaction or action, because that makes Counterspell even more of a flavorless "nope" button. The last thing we want to do is reduce the uncertainty, which is a source of tension. On the contrary, if you want a more dramatic duel, there should be an uncertain direct struggle between the casters.
Fortunately, we have a mechanic for pitting two opponents' skills directly against each other: a contest. For example, a grapple or shove pits the aggressor's Athletics directly against the target creature's Athletics or Acrobatics. Giving the opponent a choice not only has the design benefit of not forcing everyone to use the same skill with the same ability score, it also naturally creates some flavor: the target can either use raw power to brush off the attack or deft maneuvering to slip away. In either case, there's uncertainty: even with a decent edge on your opponent's skill, the roll might not go your way. But there's also a hard limit: you can't grapple or shove a creature who's more than one size larger than you; that creature invested a lot of resources to get big enough not to push around.
If we simply set up a contest between the spellcasting ability checks of each caster, then to keep it functioning like Counterspell, we'd need to add each spell's level to each caster's ability check, and add 1 more to the countering caster's check (so +4 at the base, 3rd-level casting) so that it would defeat a spell of the same level or lower. That is, if both casters got the same result on their check. And that's a good start for a raw-power contest between casters. (Spideycloned asks, "What if the creature gets advantage against magical effects? Do they get advantage on this opposed roll here?" No: it's an ability check, not a saving throw.)
Now, let's say we want that flavor of possibly identifying the spell, so as to gain an edge in foiling that spell, but we still want it to be balanced and tense. So, say the countering caster sees the opponent casting and must immediately decide whether to start countering the spell, but, if on the fly he can use his knowledge of magic and his quick mind to identify the spell, he can shape his power in the most elegant way—forming a thematically appropriate opposing effect. (I figured the most straightforward way to implement this is to give the caster advantage on his spellcasting ability check in the contest.) If he fails to identify the spell, he has to use a more brute-force method.
To keep it balanced, the opposing caster must also be able to gain an edge, perhaps using his own knowledge of spell lore and magical traditions to put a twist on the spell that evades the usual counters—or to conceal his intentions until it's too late, like a baseball pitcher who can fool you with a blazing fastball or a sneaky changeup. So, like a grapple or shove, the opposing caster would get a choice of whether to use his spellcasting ability or Arcana, which could admittedly be much greater than any spellcasting ability modifier. Like a creature sufficiently larger than you defeating your attempt to grapple or shove, a spellcaster who had invested a great deal in delving into magical secrets would be extremely hard to lock down.
Consequences of this design
Arcana is supreme
The biggest way that Contest Spell's balance deviates from Counterspell's is that the contest can be lopsided in favor of a target creature who has a sufficiently high Arcana skill, as Spideycloned rightly observes. Even if the countering caster gains advantage in the contest, that's almost never going to be as big a benefit as some high-level targets get from their high Arcana skill.
But which officially published creatures have Arcana skill, and what does that mean for players who can cast Contest Spell?
A lot of creatures with Arcana use Innate Spellcasting, and a few cast as clerics or druids. That makes it harder to identify their spells (and thus harder to counter with Contest Spell), but also means they have a harder time identifying anyone else's spells. Some of the most common examples of these creatures are various mind flayers (though some of them use wizard spells in addition to innate spells), githzerai, and slaadi.
Unsurprisingly, many of the creatures that have a noticeably high Arcana skill are casting as wizards. (These are often liches, humanoid mages, flameskulls, and middle-tier sphinxes.) So if you're a wizard trying to counter those creatures' spells, you have advantage on identifying the spell, which means you're more likely to have advantage in the contest to counter the spell. The other side of that coin is that some of those creatures can also counter your spells.
Some of the creatures with Arcana skill are casting spells as warlocks, but they're much less common than wizards, and their Arcana is almost never more than 1 higher than their spellcasting ability modifier, if at all higher.
Outside of Princes of the Apocalypse, there are scarcely any creatures casting as sorcerers, and fewer than half of them have Arcana proficiency.
I think there's only one published creature casting as a bard that has Arcana (in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist), in case you take Contest Spell as a Magical Secret.
There are no published creatures with Arcana that cast as paladins, in case you've taken the Oath of Redemption. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any published creatures that cast as fighters (if you're an eldritch knight), rogues (if you're an arcane trickster), or blood hunters (if you're in the Order of the Profane Soul)—even the generic blood hunter NPC uses innate spellcasting.
A great many spellcasters don't have Arcana proficiency. That's true of all published paladins and rangers (not that there are many), most of the few bards, most clerics and druids, most sorcerers (though again, almost all published sorcerers are from one adventure module), probably most innate casters, several warlocks (especially yuan-ti), and even a fair number of wizards. For example, you might have a fairly easy time countering a vampire spellcaster (casts as a wizard, but no Arcana; Intelligence +3) if you can stay within 60 feet of it.
This is intentional. It should be particularly hard to stop a clever creature who has devoted decades or centuries to the study of spell lore and magical traditions, beyond it having a few high-level spell slots. A lich, with +19 Arcana, has sacrificed much and studied deeply to become a magical juggernaut, so you'll need all the help (and luck) you can get to stop its spells. The same goes, but to a lesser extent, for an archmage who has devoted a successful career to such study and has +13 Arcana to show for it. An elder brain (+10 Arcana, innate spellcaster) won't simply be told "nope" on its once-per-day Dominate Monster or Plane Shift. But while there are a fair number of casters whose Arcana is high enough to statistically overcome advantage in the contest, they aren't everywhere.
Speaking of which, BumkinsMumpkins worries that "granting advantage to any caster of Contest Spell for the [contest] diminishes the unique value of Wizard's School of Abjuration feature, Improved Abjuration (adds Proficiency bonus to the ability check of counterspell/dispel magic)." I'm happy to report that Improved Abjuration is still a powerful way to improve your odds of successfully countering a spell with Contest Spell, because you make two ability checks—the Arcana check to identify the spell, and then the spellcasting ability check in the contest—and you can add your proficiency bonus (+4 at 10th level) to both! So not only are you much more likely to identify the spell and gain advantage in the contest, but you also add an additional bonus to your roll in the contest. That means Abjurers are, from 10th level on, head-and-shoulders stronger than other players at countering spells in a world with Contest Spell, as they should be. (The abjurer NPC in Volo's Guide should arguably gain the same benefit.)
Player choices and tactics
Yes, in a world with Contest Spell, wizards might be more inclined to pick the School of Abjuration. Bards enjoy the benefit of Jack of All Trades for the contest, and if they don't have Arcana they'll at least get half their proficiency bonus on identifying the spell too. Bardic Inspiration helps with either of these ability checks, as does Guidance. Casters of all kinds would be more likely to take proficiency in Arcana, and less cavalier about dumping Intelligence; Profane Soul blood hunters would have more to show for being an Intelligence-based hybrid. Foresight is almost as good as an automatic success on identifying the spell, which makes sense. Enhance Ability is a solid low-level alternative. Glibness can help in the contest if you use Charisma for it. The Lucky feat can help you succeed on either check, of course. A halfling can use its Lucky feature when it rolls a 1 on one of the checks, or the Bountiful Luck feat if an ally does so. And so on for many features that affect ability checks.
Similarly, debuffing an enemy would make it easier to counter their spells, and make it harder for them to counter yours. Any way you can cause your opponent to be frightened or poisoned or to suffer from one point of exhaustion would make them perform worse at the ability checks in Contest Spell. Cast Hex or Bestow Curse on an enemy and impose disadvantage on checks using Intelligence (including Arcana) or the target's spellcasting ability. If you're not the one casting Contest Spell, use Cutting Words to distract your opponent on either ability check.
Divination wizards can use Portent to tip either side of the duel.
Another notable change is the spell slot players will want to use. With Counterspell, you always want to cast it at the exact level of the spell you're countering: any higher and you gain no benefit; any lower and you might as well have cast it at the base 3rd level, because you have to roll the same ability check. Uncertainty about which spell you're countering tempts you to cast it at a higher level, but that's about it. But with Contest Spell, casting at a higher level always gives you better odds, because it boosts your roll in the contest.
More knowledge, more drama
Though Contest Spell has downsides, it also gives the caster knowledge about the target.
For one thing, when you roll that Arcana check to identify the spell, the DM says whether you can roll with advantage, which tells you whether the target is casting spells of your class.
Second, there's the information you gain based on whether you fail or succeed at the Arcana check: for example, if you get a 21 and you fail the check, you know the spell was cast using a slot higher than 6th level.
Third, of course, if you succeed at the Arcana check, you identify the spell, which can be valuable whether or not you succeed at countering the spell—because sometimes the effects of a spell are not obvious.
Finally, in the contest, you can get clues to your opponent's strength based on who wins.
By contrast, if you cast Counterspell, the only information you get is one or two clues about what spell slot your opponent used, because you either succeed or fail to automatically stop the spell, and if you fail you can get a second clue based on whether you succeed at your spellcasting ability check.
The knowledge and the contest make the battle more personal. Knowing more about the target as a spellcaster offers some insight into how that creature operates. When you foil an enemy’s spell or get past his counter, it’s more satisfying because you overcame a challenge. And when an enemy spellcaster shuts you down or slips past your counter, it feels like that caster earned it: he knows his stuff. That makes him a more interesting villain. Maybe he gloats about how easy it was to outmatch your ham-handed, underpowered magic; or he huffs that you just got lucky; or he gains a grudging respect for your craft. Let's say your opponent suckers you into casting Contest Spell at a high level to stop what you learn is a low-level spell, and he smirks at your overreaction. Now, don't you want to hurt him so much more?
Meanwhile, the DM and players can justifiably narrate the perceptible effects of the spell in a much more colorful way than they can with Counterspell. As with Counterspell, the higher the spell slot each side uses, the more raw force goes into each side of the battle. But with Contest Spell, there are additional factors that change how you can depict the duel:
If you identify the spell, the DM can describe some thematically appropriate opposition to the specific spell. If you don't identify the spell, you put up a more desperate, generic defense.
If the target uses its spellcasting ability in the contest, it focuses on using brute power to try to bust through the defense. If the target uses Arcana instead, it does some clever twisting or deceptive use of spellcasting components to evade the counter.
The extra narration of the casters' reactions and the spell effects makes Contest Spell into more of an event.
Final thoughts on feedback
I wondered whether my intent would be clear from the wording of the spell. Based on the reactions so far, I might need to do more work.
Heartofjuyomk2 wasn't sure "whether you retain the spell if you fail the initial check." The intent of the spell is that you always make the Arcana check and always participate in the contest, whether you succeed at the Arcana check or not, because there's no time to determine which spell the enemy is casting before you start reacting to counter the spell. The attempt to identify the spell is done after you've already started reacting, so you can hopefully shape your counter into a more effective form.
Heartofjuyomk2 also thinks the contest is very skewed because, "You get only 4 + your spellcasting ability, [while] the opponent gets the full benefits of proficiency in arcana AND the level of their spell?" I want the spell to be clear that the caster of Contest Spell adds the level of the spell slot + 1, while the target adds only the level of the spell. Since Contest Spell is a 3rd-level spell, the caster gets +4 at the base level, and as the spell says: "When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, add 1 to your spellcasting ability check for each slot level above 3rd." So if the caster and the target creature cast spells at the same level and roll the same, the target creature's spell fails. If the target creature has a high Arcana, that can skew the contest more than advantage skews the contest for the caster. If the target has a low Arcana, the skew goes the other way.
Spideycloned: "I'd never take Contest Spell and I'd purposely play a Sorcerer who uses Subtle Spell so you can't perform this [Contest] Spell mechanic." That's a take I didn't expect: wanting to be neither the character casting the spell nor the target of the spell. I love sorcerers, and the thing I enjoy about them most is Subtle Spell. Subtle Spell does exempt your spell from being countered if it doesn't require any material components, which is fun. But if your world had Contest Spell and no Counterspell, not taking Contest Spell at all would be a bold choice. Legitimate, but bold.
In retrospect, it's obvious that I didn't communicate how identifying the spell and thus gaining advantage on countering the spell could make it easier to narrate. Maybe I can do something with the opening sentence of the description to make that clearer; I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks to everyone who responded, and to everyone who offers feedback after this!
You may have missed the edit, but my smooth brain was reading the 15 as a 10, so my worry was in error. Abjurer Wizard's 14th level feature will be more powerful (assuming you get games pass level 10! Heh ).
From what I can tell in the post (the link too) it comes down to how the DM handles spell casting. If the DM is announcing the spell's name without requiring identification, then they give those with counterspell meta-game-ish information. As a hint, their casting description should be the anticipation of the action and not only the action itself (involving the vocal, somatic, and material components can help), instead of 'this monster casts fireball with a fancy description.' Something like Xanathar's optional rule would retain uncertainty by absolving that bit of meta-gaming. You could instead edit Xanathar's rule to allow 1 free skill check during a reaction or something along that line without needing to edit the spell. This would also allow usage of other skills outside of Arcana (so it isn't the "supreme") for more situations, than just counterspell. Keeping in mind adding a free-thing to any game can slow down flow (or be really unbalanced).
Or if you really wanted this style of spell you may merely need to reduce the checks down from 15 (would require some math of course). Maybe even exclude the part of needing to search through spell lists and gaining advantage (you can keep the add advantage if the check is successful). Like if I take 1 level in wizard (or any class with a large spell list), wouldn't that mean I get the 1st effect's advantage for a huge amount of spells without actually investing much into the level 1 class? Isn't that multi-class strategy a bit meta-gamey then?
If you change this spell you may need to add a similar check onto Dispel Magic as usage of that in its current state has an uncertainty factor (if you don't have a way to identify spell effects). Albeit Dispel Magic flushes down all spells on the target at or lower than its spell slot level, but using higher level slots is the risk. This is for balance as both disepl magic and counterspell are linked in design (as pointed out in your link).
You may have missed the edit, but my smooth brain was reading the 15 as a 10, so my worry was in error. Abjurer Wizard's 14th level feature will be more powerful (assuming you get games pass level 10! Heh ).
I didn't parse what you were saying about the 15 and 10, but I understand now. And yeah, getting to 10th level is a fairly high bar, but if you do, that's a big step up in power with this spell.
If the DM is announcing the spell's name without requiring identification, then they give those with counterspell meta-game-ish information. As a hint, their casting description should be the anticipation of the action and not only the action itself (involving the vocal, somatic, and material components can help), instead of 'this monster casts fireball with a fancy description.'
Agreed.
Something like Xanathar's optional rule would retain uncertainty by absolving that bit of meta-gaming. You could instead edit Xanathar's rule to allow 1 free skill check during a reaction or something along that line without needing to edit the spell.
As I understand it, the method of identifying spells on XGE page 85 isn't an optional rule, but an expansion of the core rules.
If a DM wants to homebrew a rule about skill checks during reactions, they can do so, but that would only give the caster more information, without conferring any additional benefit for countering the spell. It doesn't do most of the work Contest Spell does to make countering spells more of a fun, dramatic duel.
Or if you really wanted this style of spell you may merely need to reduce the checks down from 15 (would require some math of course).
I worry about making it too easy to gain advantage in the contest (which is a big benefit), or diverging from the XGE rule. Inserting an Arcana check and a contest into every casting of the spell offers a lot of opportunities to shift the odds in either direction.
Maybe even exclude the part of needing to search through spell lists and gaining advantage (you can keep the add advantage if the check is successful). Like if I take 1 level in wizard (or any class with a large spell list), wouldn't that mean I get the 1st effect's advantage for a huge amount of spells without actually investing much into the level 1 class? Isn't that multi-class strategy a bit meta-gamey then?
To be clear, you don't need to search through spell lists. The DM knows your class, and knows the class (if any) of the spells the target creature is casting, and if they match up you get advantage on identifying the spell. If the target creature is casting Fireball as a wizard spell, and you're a sorcerer, it doesn't matter that Fireball is also on the sorcerer's spell list: you don't gain advantage on the check to identify the spell. Or, if the target creature is a Divine Soul sorcerer and you're a Wild Magic sorcerer, and the target casts a spell from the cleric spell list, the target is still casting that spell as a sorcerer spell, and you have advantage on identifying the spell.
If you change this spell you may need to add a similar check onto Dispel Magic as usage of that in its current state has an uncertainty factor (if you don't have a way to identify spell effects). Albeit Dispel Magic flushes down all spells on the target at or lower than its spell slot level, but using higher level slots is the risk. This is for balance as both disepl magic and counterspell are linked in design (as pointed out in your link).
You're absolutely right. I thought I would get feedback on the Counterspell variant before I made a similar variant of Dispel Magic, in case the feedback led to improvements that could carry over. Dispel Magic is a little trickier, for the reasons you mentioned:
If you don't perceive the casting or the effects of the spell, you can't identify the spell. On the other hand, there's more than one opportunity to identify each spell: once when it's being cast (whether you use the XGE reaction or Contest Spell), and then as an action on subsequent turns (again using the XGE rule), and then as part of the casting of the Dispel Magic variant.
A sorcerer with Quickened Spell could potentially use a reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, an action to try to identify the spell, then cast a Quickened [Dispel Magic variant] as a bonus action. That's three opportunities to identify the spell in one round or even one turn.
Contests against multiple spells, possibly cast by multiple creatures, some identified and some not identified, would involve more dice and record-keeping than Contest Spell does.
But it would also be much cooler to narrate for the same reasons Contest Spell is cool to narrate.
Thanks, I understand where you're coming from more. As for the XGE when I say optional it is more accurate to say if your group has it or not (I think only new groups won't have the XGE, but mine does have it). The section in question provides "clarifications and new options" but assumes the reader can infer which is what, on page 85 XGE. Most of the entries I deduced as clarifications (perceiving a caster, invalid spell targets, and area of effects). The section on Identifying A Spell I presumed was a "new option" considering it lays down ground work for something that wasn't covered on PHB's Chapter 10: Spell Casting page 201. Either way, I do use XGE's Identify A Spell rule as is.
As for one spell making two dice rolls I don't personally find that it is much if the two checks use the same value (E.g. both DC's for the rolls are 13 ). So correct me if I'm wrong, as the current description causes the two checks to be different values.
Either way, it does double the rolls compared to counterspell. So if you are in a larger group (mine is smaller), then it can get out of hand if 2 or 3 Contest Spells use the same reaction. If your group is smaller then I don't think it would be an issue for you.
From my point of view, your reasoning for this spell is because it is easier to narrate than Counterspell, and that it doesn't make sense that you can counter a spell when you don't know what it is. I beg to differ. The way I see Counterspell is not the exact opposite of a spell, but rather a spell that unravels the threads of magic that a caster weaves, and in narration I describe it as either threads of magic restraining a target's hands to halt somatic components or taking away an enemy's voice to stop verbal. All the points either I or my players have used Counterspell have been in tense battles, and the Counterspell is always very exciting or makes the situation more tense. There is nothing, imo, more exciting than an enemy mage gearing up to destroy the fighter with Disintegrate, and then the wizard cast Counterspell. Or conversely, it is very tense when the wizard goes for a Fireball, but is foiled by an enemy mage, and wasted a precious slot in a tense battle. Conversely to what you say, all the die rolls required in this new spell would make caster duels more tedious, in my opinion. When it comes to being able to counter without knowing the spell, I would say that any caster would recognize a spell being cast, and Counterspell, again imo, is less of a direct counter to the specific spell and more of a catch all defense, an anonymous (?) collection of arcane power that a caster throws out, bolstering it with extra power if its original casting isn't strong enough.
To sum up, imo two different ability checks with several more advantage rules makes a duel more clunky and less fun than Counterspell. If Contest Spell was in my campaign, I personally wouldn't play a spellcaster. You say that Counterspell is boring a flavourless, and I say that Counterspell is as flavourless or flavourful as you choose to make it. Contest Spell isn't any more flavourful than Counterspell, you just add on an extra dice roll. The lack of specific description in Counterspell is to inspire creativity in your own narration, and the reason you can do it without knowing the spell is because, imo, it is more of a surge of arcane power that directly overpowers another spell than a direct counter to the spell, and if you think that it isn't then see it as the caster seeing the spell be produced, and as Counterspell is cast, it adapts to the other spell, quickly becoming the direct counter, so it is the spell adapting to the situation rather than the caster having to know the spell. I'd rather have a dramatic reaction, that saves a party from a devastating spell, than casting and then rolling 2 checks with finicky mechanics at best. Nothing personal, but Contest Spell is not for me.
The issue I see with a lot of this system is that your games seem to work very differently from many other folks'. Going through your reasoning for Contest, it's apparent that you do not announce the spell being cast when you (presumably the DM, given your huge rewrite of Counterspell mechanics) have an enemy caster discharge a spell. That's good for many spells - when a fae critter subtle-casts a Charm Person, that's handled differently than usual - but in many cases the DM's action and narration is preceded by the words "[thw critter] casts [X]. I need saves from..."
If your table is the sort that does this, then the entire foundational idea of Contest Spell - that nobody has the foggiest idea what any other spellcaster is doing - flies apart. The characters may not know, but the players do, and that turns the whole thing from a tense, dramatic battle of arcane wit into "Okay, Contest Spell? Cool. Roll to **** it up. Did you **** it up? Great - now roll to **** it up again." On top of adding a shit ton of dice rolling to what is supposed to be a quick reaction in the middle of a turn sequence, this comes off less like something designed to evoke a badass magical duel and more a way for the DM to justify saying "stop cockblocking all my spells, you ********" to his party.
If you really want to do this, I would consider making 'Contest Spell' a setting rule rather than its own spell. Challenge your players to think quickly and cast one of their regular-ass spells as a reaction and justify why that spell, cast hastily and in defensive desperation, would nullify what the critter is doing.
Elsewise, I don't consider Counterspell to be a "cheesy flavorless magic Nope Button", I consider it to be a swift magical parry or aetherial jab. A target spellcaster is assembling a house of cards in the middle of a battle with their mind; Counterspell is using a bolt of unseen power to kick out some of the bottom and cause the whole thing to collapse.
Certain critters could do with additional resistance to Counterspell, yes. An ancient lich should always require a casting ability check, and likely impose disadvantage on that check. Alternatively, such a critter might have the ability to use its legendary resistances to flat-out deny a Counterspell - no-sell the players' Nope. That would be a more elegant, and indeed terrifying, way of selling the idea that this ancient monstrous master of the arcane is not to be dicked with.
"You strike out with that arcane jolt of energy that's served you so well in the past...and feel a painful shock in your hand as the energy rebounds. It feels like you've tried to punch a steel wall - Magalor's control of his magic is so absolute it feels like a law of nature rather than the twisting-from-true you're used to. It's always been easy for you to knock an enemy's spells askew, but as the tingling in your hand fades and Magalor's ancient, papery skin-mask of a face briefly twists into a faint, scornful smirk, you realize...this is not going to be nearly so simple."
From my point of view, your reasoning for this spell is because it is easier to narrate than Counterspell, and that it doesn't make sense that you can counter a spell when you don't know what it is. I beg to differ. [...T]he reason you can do it without knowing the spell is because, imo, it is more of a surge of arcane power that directly overpowers another spell than a direct counter to the spell
I didn't say "it doesn't make sense that you can counter a spell when you don't know what it is." The way it's written, Counterspell is purely about using power in the form of spell slots and, failing that, making an ability check with your spellcasting ability modifier. Sly Flourish offered a way to narrate Counterspell to make it more exciting and flavorful, which involved creating a thematically appropriate opposite of a spell. I noted that it doesn't make much sense for a caster to be crafting the opposite of a spell when, going by RAW, one doesn't know what spell one is countering. Which brings me to:
The issue I see with a lot of this system is that your games seem to work very differently from many other folks'. Going through your reasoning for Contest, it's apparent that you do not announce the spell being cast when you (presumably the DM, given your huge rewrite of Counterspell mechanics) have an enemy caster discharge a spell. That's good for many spells - when a fae critter subtle-casts a Charm Person, that's handled differently than usual - but in many cases the DM's action and narration is preceded by the words "[thw critter] casts [X]. I need saves from..."
If your table is the sort that does this, then the entire foundational idea of Contest Spell - that nobody has the foggiest idea what any other spellcaster is doing - flies apart.
That's mostly correct. Going by the rules, you do gather that another caster is casting something if you can see any of the components, but you're not supposed to know specifically which spell is being cast. The DM or player offers clues through context and sometimes by describing the components, and there are a few ways to handle this, depending on what's most fun at your table. (I find that sticking to the spellcasting rules creates opportunities for gamesmanship and surprise, and makes everyone appreciate sorcerers' metamagic more.) But if you're at the kind of table where you ignore those rules and flatly announce which spell is being cast, then Contest Spell is less useful for you.
All the points either I or my players have used Counterspell have been in tense battles, and the Counterspell is always very exciting or makes the situation more tense. There is nothing, imo, more exciting than an enemy mage gearing up to destroy the fighter with Disintegrate, and then the wizard cast Counterspell. Or conversely, it is very tense when the wizard goes for a Fireball, but is foiled by an enemy mage, and wasted a precious slot in a tense battle.
If Counterspell increases tension for you, I can't say I understand how, even after reading your reasoning, but more power to you and your players! I have seen Counterspell used in dramatically satisfying ways; indeed, for a popular example, the most dramatic moment of Critical Role to date centered on a Counterspell. But that kind of drama usually comes from the context. For people who don't usually have that experience, I'm trying to create an alternative that lends itself to creating dramatic moments more often.
Conversely to what you say, all the die rolls required in this new spell would make caster duels more tedious, in my opinion. [...]
To sum up, imo two different ability checks with several more advantage rules makes a duel more clunky and less fun than Counterspell. [...] Contest Spell isn't any more flavourful than Counterspell, you just add on an extra dice roll. [...] I'd rather have a dramatic reaction, that saves a party from a devastating spell, than casting and then rolling 2 checks with finicky mechanics at best.
It's true that the extra dice rolls slow things down. I hoped DMs would find this to be a feature rather than a bug: it focuses attention on the event, like when an action sequence slows down time to focus on details that ordinarily pass too quickly to appreciate. In this case, we're dramatizing the caster's quick, keen mind by dilating the time in which he reads his opponent, forms an appropriate response, and puts it into action.
Given that you said, "Counterspell is as flavourless or flavourful as you choose to make it," try to apply the same mindset to those extra dice rolls: they invite the DM and player to describe what's going on in a way that's justified by the mechanics, rather than trying to make spell-slot-versus-spell-slot sound more intricate and informative than it is. If you cast Counterspell at 5th level and the enemy used a spell slot lower than 6th level, that's it: automatic cancellation. The most natural way to narrate Counterspell is as a quick punch in the face to interrupt the target's process. You can add a little light and sound to it, and you can make the target sound frustrated that your spell slot was equal to or greater than his, but any more dramatically interesting information is purely tacked on in a way that players can often smell.
A sufficiently bad DM could make Contest Spell boring by just ordering the player to roll, telling the player which spell is being cast (or not), ordering another roll, and then reporting who wins the contest. But that would be missing several opportunities to describe the player undergoing a challenge, learning about his target, and trying to overcome opposition.
Before the first roll, the DM feeds information to the caster of Contest Spell about the target. "As you begin to react to the spell, you reflexively recognize the style of casting: Ofur is a fellow warlock! Roll Arcana with advantage." Or, "As you examine Ofur's spellcasting technique, you're alarmed to realize that the source of Ofur's power is a different kind from your own. It's going to be a challenge to identify the spell he's casting, but make a straight roll..."
A player almost automatically roleplays the first check: rolling low, they can act flustered, confused, or just disappointed with themselves; if they roll high, they can narrow their eyes expectantly.
On a failure or success of the first check, the DM has yet more information to convey. "With only a split second to read Ofur's motions, the pitch and resonance of his arcane words, the rubbery object he pulled from his belt pouch... it barely clicks: he's trying to conjure a swarm of black tentacles. You have just the thing to stop those, so roll with advantage." Or, "You try to get a bead on the spell he's casting, but this spell is too intricate for you to decipher in time. He's casting something powerful, and you scramble to interrupt him with blunt power of your own. Make a straight roll."
How the player performs in the contest gives the DM and player more opportunities for narration and roleplay: effort against effort, technique versus technique, a struggle between minds with a victor and a loser. If the caster identifies the spell, the situation invites the narration of a specific foil to the spell; if not, he has to do something less customized, which you can still narrate as a "swift magical parry or aetherial jab." (I love Yurei1453's description in that sentence and the next: "A target spellcaster is assembling a house of cards in the middle of a battle with their mind; Counterspell is using a bolt of unseen power to kick out some of the bottom and cause the whole thing to collapse.")
At each step, there's a chance for expectations to be dashed or fulfilled, and the player learns something about his foe.
Certain critters could do with additional resistance to Counterspell, yes. An ancient lich should always require a casting ability check, and likely impose disadvantage on that check. Alternatively, such a critter might have the ability to use its legendary resistances to flat-out deny a Counterspell - no-sell the players' Nope. That would be a more elegant, and indeed terrifying, way of selling the idea that this ancient monstrous master of the arcane is not to be dicked with.
Players who feel like Counterspell is a flavorless "nope" button tend to have similar reactions to legendary resistances, but I still like your ideas here, as long as the players don't feel cheated. Learning that a particular creature can defend against one of the player's spells differently than they can in the official rules isn't every player's idea of a fun surprise, so use some finesse.
...this comes off less like something designed to evoke a badass magical duel and more a way for the DM to justify saying "stop cockblocking all my spells, you ********" to his party.
Contest Spell, like Counterspell, can go both ways. It's not fun for players to get automatically shut down, either.
If you really want to do this, I would consider making 'Contest Spell' a setting rule rather than its own spell. Challenge your players to think quickly and cast one of their regular-ass spells as a reaction and justify why that spell, cast hastily and in defensive desperation, would nullify what the critter is doing.
That sounds fun! I can immediately think of a lot of alternative applications for spells to fit the bill. Figuring out which of your spells is right for the specific situation could be slower than a couple of dice rolls, but the creative solutions could be well worth the time.
Getting back to the original post. I would not use Contest Spell in it's current iteration mainly to due to group-scaling for a spell that should be a reaction (e.g. two checks for each use of contest spell). This is taking into account my own group is small enough that it wouldn't matter for me, but I'm also thinking back on Dispel Magic, as we pointed out the two spells are linked. Even in the current Counterspell scenario things can get lengthy as even noted in Critical Role's usage provided the group/dm narrates appropriately.
It's been established that describing the interaction can happen in both scenarios. I don't think the additional roll is necessary if your group understands you want a description, but from what I can tell you don't like the automatic nature of current Counterspell. You mention one method where a DM want's an opposite force in their description for the Counterspell and that would require knowing what spell was cast. I agree that could be meta-gamey, which is why I wouldn't use that method either. You could re-flavor it as a distracting force instead, and require Counterspell to happen before any damage rolls or saving throws are made with the spell they intend to interrupt. This would be smallest change, and wouldn't require much fiddling with Dispel Magic.
If you wanted to go one step further you can tackle the automatic nature of both Dispel Magic, and Counterspell by removing that function so tension returns with the dice roll at all levels. A compensation would be is to add the level of the spell slot to the Counterspell caster's ability check like so: make an ability check using your spellcasting ability + the level of the slot used for this spell. This keeps casting it at higher slots relevant and goes back to matching power with power even though rolling dice has introduced some tension. Additionally the DC for both Dispel Magic and Counterspell can be raised to 13 (because both are 3rd level spells that would add +3 by default), but I wouldn't go beyond 15. While this adds a little bit of math we have still reduced things down to 1 roll.
Would I use a Counterspell variant with even these changes? Not really, no. I have grown up with Guild Wars 1 (and I guess 2) where interrupts were a key feature and even a party role. Rangers and Mesmers were classes in that game that featured interrupt abilities heavily so I'm personally not bothered by a monster being interrupted. The fun of interrupts is going to be subjective here. Also my group has played plenty of competitive games such as League of Legends, so them being 'CCed' or interrupted isn't a bother on them either.
Instead I would focus my efforts on encounter design or tactics. If a creature is aware that Counterspell exists why would they not attempt to blind their targets before unleashing their nifty spell? Maybe have two casters, and one could even have their own Counterspell or Blindness/Deafness or any other spell that might obstruct vision? Maybe include a special lair action, such as in Guild Wars 1 a boss literally gets enraged due to being interrupted causing something to occur afterward. In the end I run Counterspell as is. Typically I want the whole encounter to be the magical duel, and not one reaction spell. After all, what good is a Lich if he only has 1 trick?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's my first stab at creating a replacement for Counterspell intended to be more naturally fun and easy to narrate as a duel. I call it Contest Spell, and it shares a lot in common with Counterspell—spell level, range, trigger, and so on—but the description of the spell reads:
In my next post in this thread, I'll explain why I thought Counterspell could use a variant, how I expect the spell to work, and how I think it lends itself to being narrated. But before you read that, I'd like to get some feedback while you have fresh eyes. Is the spell description as clear as possible, or is there a clearer way to write it? What is your immediate reaction to Contest Spell? How would you play your character or design your campaign differently if Contest Spell replaced Counterspell?
It seems to combine the optional rule in Xanathar's for Identifying a Spell (doubling the length of text). Some prefer that rule to remain optional so Counterspell is still risky.
Also granting advantage to any caster of Contest Spell for the saving throw diminishes the unique value of Wizard's School of Abjuration feature, Improved Abjuration (adds Proficiency bonus to the ability check of counterspell/dispel magic).
I will probably have to wait for your next post, but it might come down to how people deal with magic ultimately. You might consider making a bonus action spell that let's you use Arcana skill checks freely in a reaction to identify spells instead (thereby trading a bonus action instead of using up a reaction).
Edit: Misread the 15 as a 10 like the normal counter spell. Utterly making my statement erroneous, as this makes the spell harder to use. Still looking forward to the next post for better context.
Why is this so mechanics heavy and inconsistent?
So let's talk about the math behind this because D&D is based on bonded accuracy. You get Counterspell at level 5 assuming no multiclass, and for the most part, most players don't Counterspell 0(cantrips), 1st and 2nd level spells. So a 3rd level spell is going to need an Arcana Check of 18. Assuming 18 INT at level 5 and a +3 prof modifier, that's a +7. So you have the opportunity to identify the spell first. Cool. You identify it. Less than half the time at the level you get Counter Spell. More often than not once you get INT to 20 and another proficiency bump.
So we get to use your spellcasting ability, INT, and add a +4. Meanwhile, the person who is casting the Spell gets to make an Arcana check, which is a +7. Now the person performing the Counter and using the same spell slot is at an inherent 15% disadvantage. Sure, they get an advantage on the roll if they successfully identified it, but they're going to identify it less than half the time. We already a contest to see if I knew what spell it was, which I fail more often than not, and now I get to fail here too more often than not. What if the creature gets advantage against magical effects? Do they get advantage on this opposed roll here?
I don't like this at all. It takes all the ease out of Counterspell and now makes it just a dice rolling extravaganza. Caster casts spell, now opposed by counter. Opposition rolls one set of dice to determine and then dice off to see who wins. Assuming a loss, NOW the first party finally gets to roll or force saves.
To answer your final question, I'd never take Contest Spell and I'd purposely play a Sorcerer who uses Subtle Spell so you can't perform this Counter Spell mechanic.
There's really only one main reason I wouldn't use it--too many rolls. Counterspell is already risky enough. In 3e, recognizing a spell was required because you need to cast the exact same spell to counterspell it, unless you deliberately use dispel magic for that purpose. In 5e, you're already using a finite resource to prepare counterspell, and most monsters don't even have spellcasting abilities. But under this system, you have a really solid chance of wasting the spell from the get-go, since there's no mention of whether you retain the spell if you fail the initial check. Further, sometimes it's not immediately clear whether a spell is on the character's class list, so you'd end up slowing down the game to work out whether a caster has access to the spell.
And the second roll is bizarre. You get only 4 + your spellcasting ability, which the opponent gets the full benefits of proficiency in arcana AND the level of their spell? It's a very skewed contest.
I'm glad I asked for fresh eyes! If I explain the process that led to this spell, that might help sharpen the feedback even further.
Why I thought Counterspell could use a variant
The main thing that spurred me to think about alternatives to Counterspell was an old post by DM David, "How new changes created the 4 most annoying spells in Dungeons & Dragons," in which he pointed out:
DM David preferred to dispense with Counterspell altogether, but I wondered if there wasn't a way to just make countering spells more fun. Partly because I enjoyed Sly Flourish's "colorful descriptions." This kind of confrontation between casters sounds so exciting and filled with dramatic possibility:
Unfortunately, this narration isn't justified by the mechanics in 5th Edition. How can a caster conjure the antithesis of a spell without knowing which spell is being cast? Counterspell is merely built around power levels: the spell slots being consumed, and—if your spell slot isn't at least as high as the one the enemy used—a spellcasting ability check based on the spell slot the enemy used. The DM and players know this, so the narration feels hollow or tacked-on.
But what if we could change that? What if we could have duels in which each caster could augment his power by using his knowledge of magic and his quick thinking?
Elements of a fun spell-countering variant
Add it up, and it could be more fun to have a balanced variant of Counterspell in which the countering caster learns which spell is being cast, but preferably adding to the dramatic tension rather than subtracting from it.
There is a way to identify the spell being cast, on page 85 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, as BumkinsMumpkins mentioned: an Arcana check with a DC of 15 + the spell's level, with advantage on the check if the spell is cast as a class spell and you are a member of that class.* But that uses a reaction or action, so you can't do that and then cast Counterspell, unless the spell is taking longer than a turn to cast.
* Heartofjuyomk2 worries that this will slow down the game because you'd need to check whether you have access to that spell, but fortunately, it's simpler than that. The only question is whether the target is casting the spell as a member of a class to which you belong (e.g. a wizard), not whether the wizard spell also happens to be on your spell list as a sorcerer or eldritch knight or whatever. The DM can check, under the creature's spellcasting trait, whether it is casting as a member of a class ("has the following wizard spells prepared") or is using Innate Spellcasting ("can innately cast the following spells").
I didn't want to simply remove the requirement to use a reaction or action, because that makes Counterspell even more of a flavorless "nope" button. The last thing we want to do is reduce the uncertainty, which is a source of tension. On the contrary, if you want a more dramatic duel, there should be an uncertain direct struggle between the casters.
Fortunately, we have a mechanic for pitting two opponents' skills directly against each other: a contest.
For example, a grapple or shove pits the aggressor's Athletics directly against the target creature's Athletics or Acrobatics. Giving the opponent a choice not only has the design benefit of not forcing everyone to use the same skill with the same ability score, it also naturally creates some flavor: the target can either use raw power to brush off the attack or deft maneuvering to slip away. In either case, there's uncertainty: even with a decent edge on your opponent's skill, the roll might not go your way. But there's also a hard limit: you can't grapple or shove a creature who's more than one size larger than you; that creature invested a lot of resources to get big enough not to push around.
If we simply set up a contest between the spellcasting ability checks of each caster, then to keep it functioning like Counterspell, we'd need to add each spell's level to each caster's ability check, and add 1 more to the countering caster's check (so +4 at the base, 3rd-level casting) so that it would defeat a spell of the same level or lower. That is, if both casters got the same result on their check. And that's a good start for a raw-power contest between casters. (Spideycloned asks, "What if the creature gets advantage against magical effects? Do they get advantage on this opposed roll here?" No: it's an ability check, not a saving throw.)
Now, let's say we want that flavor of possibly identifying the spell, so as to gain an edge in foiling that spell, but we still want it to be balanced and tense. So, say the countering caster sees the opponent casting and must immediately decide whether to start countering the spell, but, if on the fly he can use his knowledge of magic and his quick mind to identify the spell, he can shape his power in the most elegant way—forming a thematically appropriate opposing effect. (I figured the most straightforward way to implement this is to give the caster advantage on his spellcasting ability check in the contest.) If he fails to identify the spell, he has to use a more brute-force method.
To keep it balanced, the opposing caster must also be able to gain an edge, perhaps using his own knowledge of spell lore and magical traditions to put a twist on the spell that evades the usual counters—or to conceal his intentions until it's too late, like a baseball pitcher who can fool you with a blazing fastball or a sneaky changeup. So, like a grapple or shove, the opposing caster would get a choice of whether to use his spellcasting ability or Arcana, which could admittedly be much greater than any spellcasting ability modifier. Like a creature sufficiently larger than you defeating your attempt to grapple or shove, a spellcaster who had invested a great deal in delving into magical secrets would be extremely hard to lock down.
Consequences of this design
Arcana is supreme
The biggest way that Contest Spell's balance deviates from Counterspell's is that the contest can be lopsided in favor of a target creature who has a sufficiently high Arcana skill, as Spideycloned rightly observes. Even if the countering caster gains advantage in the contest, that's almost never going to be as big a benefit as some high-level targets get from their high Arcana skill.
But which officially published creatures have Arcana skill, and what does that mean for players who can cast Contest Spell?
A great many spellcasters don't have Arcana proficiency. That's true of all published paladins and rangers (not that there are many), most of the few bards, most clerics and druids, most sorcerers (though again, almost all published sorcerers are from one adventure module), probably most innate casters, several warlocks (especially yuan-ti), and even a fair number of wizards. For example, you might have a fairly easy time countering a vampire spellcaster (casts as a wizard, but no Arcana; Intelligence +3) if you can stay within 60 feet of it.
This is intentional. It should be particularly hard to stop a clever creature who has devoted decades or centuries to the study of spell lore and magical traditions, beyond it having a few high-level spell slots. A lich, with +19 Arcana, has sacrificed much and studied deeply to become a magical juggernaut, so you'll need all the help (and luck) you can get to stop its spells. The same goes, but to a lesser extent, for an archmage who has devoted a successful career to such study and has +13 Arcana to show for it. An elder brain (+10 Arcana, innate spellcaster) won't simply be told "nope" on its once-per-day Dominate Monster or Plane Shift. But while there are a fair number of casters whose Arcana is high enough to statistically overcome advantage in the contest, they aren't everywhere.
Speaking of which, BumkinsMumpkins worries that "granting advantage to any caster of Contest Spell for the [contest] diminishes the unique value of Wizard's School of Abjuration feature, Improved Abjuration (adds Proficiency bonus to the ability check of counterspell/dispel magic)." I'm happy to report that Improved Abjuration is still a powerful way to improve your odds of successfully countering a spell with Contest Spell, because you make two ability checks—the Arcana check to identify the spell, and then the spellcasting ability check in the contest—and you can add your proficiency bonus (+4 at 10th level) to both! So not only are you much more likely to identify the spell and gain advantage in the contest, but you also add an additional bonus to your roll in the contest. That means Abjurers are, from 10th level on, head-and-shoulders stronger than other players at countering spells in a world with Contest Spell, as they should be. (The abjurer NPC in Volo's Guide should arguably gain the same benefit.)
Player choices and tactics
Yes, in a world with Contest Spell, wizards might be more inclined to pick the School of Abjuration. Bards enjoy the benefit of Jack of All Trades for the contest, and if they don't have Arcana they'll at least get half their proficiency bonus on identifying the spell too. Bardic Inspiration helps with either of these ability checks, as does Guidance. Casters of all kinds would be more likely to take proficiency in Arcana, and less cavalier about dumping Intelligence; Profane Soul blood hunters would have more to show for being an Intelligence-based hybrid. Foresight is almost as good as an automatic success on identifying the spell, which makes sense. Enhance Ability is a solid low-level alternative. Glibness can help in the contest if you use Charisma for it.
The Lucky feat can help you succeed on either check, of course. A halfling can use its Lucky feature when it rolls a 1 on one of the checks, or the Bountiful Luck feat if an ally does so. And so on for many features that affect ability checks.
Similarly, debuffing an enemy would make it easier to counter their spells, and make it harder for them to counter yours. Any way you can cause your opponent to be frightened or poisoned or to suffer from one point of exhaustion would make them perform worse at the ability checks in Contest Spell. Cast Hex or Bestow Curse on an enemy and impose disadvantage on checks using Intelligence (including Arcana) or the target's spellcasting ability. If you're not the one casting Contest Spell, use Cutting Words to distract your opponent on either ability check.
Divination wizards can use Portent to tip either side of the duel.
Another notable change is the spell slot players will want to use. With Counterspell, you always want to cast it at the exact level of the spell you're countering: any higher and you gain no benefit; any lower and you might as well have cast it at the base 3rd level, because you have to roll the same ability check. Uncertainty about which spell you're countering tempts you to cast it at a higher level, but that's about it.
But with Contest Spell, casting at a higher level always gives you better odds, because it boosts your roll in the contest.
More knowledge, more drama
Though Contest Spell has downsides, it also gives the caster knowledge about the target.
By contrast, if you cast Counterspell, the only information you get is one or two clues about what spell slot your opponent used, because you either succeed or fail to automatically stop the spell, and if you fail you can get a second clue based on whether you succeed at your spellcasting ability check.
The knowledge and the contest make the battle more personal. Knowing more about the target as a spellcaster offers some insight into how that creature operates. When you foil an enemy’s spell or get past his counter, it’s more satisfying because you overcame a challenge. And when an enemy spellcaster shuts you down or slips past your counter, it feels like that caster earned it: he knows his stuff. That makes him a more interesting villain. Maybe he gloats about how easy it was to outmatch your ham-handed, underpowered magic; or he huffs that you just got lucky; or he gains a grudging respect for your craft.
Let's say your opponent suckers you into casting Contest Spell at a high level to stop what you learn is a low-level spell, and he smirks at your overreaction. Now, don't you want to hurt him so much more?
Meanwhile, the DM and players can justifiably narrate the perceptible effects of the spell in a much more colorful way than they can with Counterspell. As with Counterspell, the higher the spell slot each side uses, the more raw force goes into each side of the battle. But with Contest Spell, there are additional factors that change how you can depict the duel:
The extra narration of the casters' reactions and the spell effects makes Contest Spell into more of an event.
Final thoughts on feedback
I wondered whether my intent would be clear from the wording of the spell. Based on the reactions so far, I might need to do more work.
If the target creature has a high Arcana, that can skew the contest more than advantage skews the contest for the caster. If the target has a low Arcana, the skew goes the other way.
I love sorcerers, and the thing I enjoy about them most is Subtle Spell. Subtle Spell does exempt your spell from being countered if it doesn't require any material components, which is fun. But if your world had Contest Spell and no Counterspell, not taking Contest Spell at all would be a bold choice. Legitimate, but bold.
Thanks to everyone who responded, and to everyone who offers feedback after this!
You may have missed the edit, but my smooth brain was reading the 15 as a 10, so my worry was in error. Abjurer Wizard's 14th level feature will be more powerful (assuming you get games pass level 10! Heh ).
From what I can tell in the post (the link too) it comes down to how the DM handles spell casting. If the DM is announcing the spell's name without requiring identification, then they give those with counterspell meta-game-ish information. As a hint, their casting description should be the anticipation of the action and not only the action itself (involving the vocal, somatic, and material components can help), instead of 'this monster casts fireball with a fancy description.' Something like Xanathar's optional rule would retain uncertainty by absolving that bit of meta-gaming. You could instead edit Xanathar's rule to allow 1 free skill check during a reaction or something along that line without needing to edit the spell. This would also allow usage of other skills outside of Arcana (so it isn't the "supreme") for more situations, than just counterspell. Keeping in mind adding a free-thing to any game can slow down flow (or be really unbalanced).
Or if you really wanted this style of spell you may merely need to reduce the checks down from 15 (would require some math of course). Maybe even exclude the part of needing to search through spell lists and gaining advantage (you can keep the add advantage if the check is successful). Like if I take 1 level in wizard (or any class with a large spell list), wouldn't that mean I get the 1st effect's advantage for a huge amount of spells without actually investing much into the level 1 class? Isn't that multi-class strategy a bit meta-gamey then?
If you change this spell you may need to add a similar check onto Dispel Magic as usage of that in its current state has an uncertainty factor (if you don't have a way to identify spell effects). Albeit Dispel Magic flushes down all spells on the target at or lower than its spell slot level, but using higher level slots is the risk. This is for balance as both disepl magic and counterspell are linked in design (as pointed out in your link).
Edit: Proof reading
BumkinsMumpkins:
I didn't parse what you were saying about the 15 and 10, but I understand now. And yeah, getting to 10th level is a fairly high bar, but if you do, that's a big step up in power with this spell.
Agreed.
I worry about making it too easy to gain advantage in the contest (which is a big benefit), or diverging from the XGE rule. Inserting an Arcana check and a contest into every casting of the spell offers a lot of opportunities to shift the odds in either direction.
To be clear, you don't need to search through spell lists. The DM knows your class, and knows the class (if any) of the spells the target creature is casting, and if they match up you get advantage on identifying the spell. If the target creature is casting Fireball as a wizard spell, and you're a sorcerer, it doesn't matter that Fireball is also on the sorcerer's spell list: you don't gain advantage on the check to identify the spell. Or, if the target creature is a Divine Soul sorcerer and you're a Wild Magic sorcerer, and the target casts a spell from the cleric spell list, the target is still casting that spell as a sorcerer spell, and you have advantage on identifying the spell.
You're absolutely right. I thought I would get feedback on the Counterspell variant before I made a similar variant of Dispel Magic, in case the feedback led to improvements that could carry over. Dispel Magic is a little trickier, for the reasons you mentioned:
But it would also be much cooler to narrate for the same reasons Contest Spell is cool to narrate.
Thanks, I understand where you're coming from more. As for the XGE when I say optional it is more accurate to say if your group has it or not (I think only new groups won't have the XGE, but mine does have it). The section in question provides "clarifications and new options" but assumes the reader can infer which is what, on page 85 XGE. Most of the entries I deduced as clarifications (perceiving a caster, invalid spell targets, and area of effects). The section on Identifying A Spell I presumed was a "new option" considering it lays down ground work for something that wasn't covered on PHB's Chapter 10: Spell Casting page 201. Either way, I do use XGE's Identify A Spell rule as is.
As for one spell making two dice rolls I don't personally find that it is much if the two checks use the same value (E.g. both DC's for the rolls are 13 ). So correct me if I'm wrong, as the current description causes the two checks to be different values.
Either way, it does double the rolls compared to counterspell. So if you are in a larger group (mine is smaller), then it can get out of hand if 2 or 3 Contest Spells use the same reaction. If your group is smaller then I don't think it would be an issue for you.
From my point of view, your reasoning for this spell is because it is easier to narrate than Counterspell, and that it doesn't make sense that you can counter a spell when you don't know what it is. I beg to differ. The way I see Counterspell is not the exact opposite of a spell, but rather a spell that unravels the threads of magic that a caster weaves, and in narration I describe it as either threads of magic restraining a target's hands to halt somatic components or taking away an enemy's voice to stop verbal. All the points either I or my players have used Counterspell have been in tense battles, and the Counterspell is always very exciting or makes the situation more tense. There is nothing, imo, more exciting than an enemy mage gearing up to destroy the fighter with Disintegrate, and then the wizard cast Counterspell. Or conversely, it is very tense when the wizard goes for a Fireball, but is foiled by an enemy mage, and wasted a precious slot in a tense battle. Conversely to what you say, all the die rolls required in this new spell would make caster duels more tedious, in my opinion. When it comes to being able to counter without knowing the spell, I would say that any caster would recognize a spell being cast, and Counterspell, again imo, is less of a direct counter to the specific spell and more of a catch all defense, an anonymous (?) collection of arcane power that a caster throws out, bolstering it with extra power if its original casting isn't strong enough.
To sum up, imo two different ability checks with several more advantage rules makes a duel more clunky and less fun than Counterspell. If Contest Spell was in my campaign, I personally wouldn't play a spellcaster. You say that Counterspell is boring a flavourless, and I say that Counterspell is as flavourless or flavourful as you choose to make it. Contest Spell isn't any more flavourful than Counterspell, you just add on an extra dice roll. The lack of specific description in Counterspell is to inspire creativity in your own narration, and the reason you can do it without knowing the spell is because, imo, it is more of a surge of arcane power that directly overpowers another spell than a direct counter to the spell, and if you think that it isn't then see it as the caster seeing the spell be produced, and as Counterspell is cast, it adapts to the other spell, quickly becoming the direct counter, so it is the spell adapting to the situation rather than the caster having to know the spell. I'd rather have a dramatic reaction, that saves a party from a devastating spell, than casting and then rolling 2 checks with finicky mechanics at best. Nothing personal, but Contest Spell is not for me.
The issue I see with a lot of this system is that your games seem to work very differently from many other folks'. Going through your reasoning for Contest, it's apparent that you do not announce the spell being cast when you (presumably the DM, given your huge rewrite of Counterspell mechanics) have an enemy caster discharge a spell. That's good for many spells - when a fae critter subtle-casts a Charm Person, that's handled differently than usual - but in many cases the DM's action and narration is preceded by the words "[thw critter] casts [X]. I need saves from..."
If your table is the sort that does this, then the entire foundational idea of Contest Spell - that nobody has the foggiest idea what any other spellcaster is doing - flies apart. The characters may not know, but the players do, and that turns the whole thing from a tense, dramatic battle of arcane wit into "Okay, Contest Spell? Cool. Roll to **** it up. Did you **** it up? Great - now roll to **** it up again." On top of adding a shit ton of dice rolling to what is supposed to be a quick reaction in the middle of a turn sequence, this comes off less like something designed to evoke a badass magical duel and more a way for the DM to justify saying "stop cockblocking all my spells, you ********" to his party.
If you really want to do this, I would consider making 'Contest Spell' a setting rule rather than its own spell. Challenge your players to think quickly and cast one of their regular-ass spells as a reaction and justify why that spell, cast hastily and in defensive desperation, would nullify what the critter is doing.
Elsewise, I don't consider Counterspell to be a "cheesy flavorless magic Nope Button", I consider it to be a swift magical parry or aetherial jab. A target spellcaster is assembling a house of cards in the middle of a battle with their mind; Counterspell is using a bolt of unseen power to kick out some of the bottom and cause the whole thing to collapse.
Certain critters could do with additional resistance to Counterspell, yes. An ancient lich should always require a casting ability check, and likely impose disadvantage on that check. Alternatively, such a critter might have the ability to use its legendary resistances to flat-out deny a Counterspell - no-sell the players' Nope. That would be a more elegant, and indeed terrifying, way of selling the idea that this ancient monstrous master of the arcane is not to be dicked with.
"You strike out with that arcane jolt of energy that's served you so well in the past...and feel a painful shock in your hand as the energy rebounds. It feels like you've tried to punch a steel wall - Magalor's control of his magic is so absolute it feels like a law of nature rather than the twisting-from-true you're used to. It's always been easy for you to knock an enemy's spells askew, but as the tingling in your hand fades and Magalor's ancient, papery skin-mask of a face briefly twists into a faint, scornful smirk, you realize...this is not going to be nearly so simple."
Please do not contact or message me.
^^^^^This
I didn't say "it doesn't make sense that you can counter a spell when you don't know what it is." The way it's written, Counterspell is purely about using power in the form of spell slots and, failing that, making an ability check with your spellcasting ability modifier.
Sly Flourish offered a way to narrate Counterspell to make it more exciting and flavorful, which involved creating a thematically appropriate opposite of a spell. I noted that it doesn't make much sense for a caster to be crafting the opposite of a spell when, going by RAW, one doesn't know what spell one is countering. Which brings me to:
That's mostly correct. Going by the rules, you do gather that another caster is casting something if you can see any of the components, but you're not supposed to know specifically which spell is being cast. The DM or player offers clues through context and sometimes by describing the components, and there are a few ways to handle this, depending on what's most fun at your table. (I find that sticking to the spellcasting rules creates opportunities for gamesmanship and surprise, and makes everyone appreciate sorcerers' metamagic more.) But if you're at the kind of table where you ignore those rules and flatly announce which spell is being cast, then Contest Spell is less useful for you.
If Counterspell increases tension for you, I can't say I understand how, even after reading your reasoning, but more power to you and your players! I have seen Counterspell used in dramatically satisfying ways; indeed, for a popular example, the most dramatic moment of Critical Role to date centered on a Counterspell. But that kind of drama usually comes from the context. For people who don't usually have that experience, I'm trying to create an alternative that lends itself to creating dramatic moments more often.
It's true that the extra dice rolls slow things down. I hoped DMs would find this to be a feature rather than a bug: it focuses attention on the event, like when an action sequence slows down time to focus on details that ordinarily pass too quickly to appreciate. In this case, we're dramatizing the caster's quick, keen mind by dilating the time in which he reads his opponent, forms an appropriate response, and puts it into action.
Given that you said, "Counterspell is as flavourless or flavourful as you choose to make it," try to apply the same mindset to those extra dice rolls: they invite the DM and player to describe what's going on in a way that's justified by the mechanics, rather than trying to make spell-slot-versus-spell-slot sound more intricate and informative than it is. If you cast Counterspell at 5th level and the enemy used a spell slot lower than 6th level, that's it: automatic cancellation. The most natural way to narrate Counterspell is as a quick punch in the face to interrupt the target's process. You can add a little light and sound to it, and you can make the target sound frustrated that your spell slot was equal to or greater than his, but any more dramatically interesting information is purely tacked on in a way that players can often smell.
A sufficiently bad DM could make Contest Spell boring by just ordering the player to roll, telling the player which spell is being cast (or not), ordering another roll, and then reporting who wins the contest. But that would be missing several opportunities to describe the player undergoing a challenge, learning about his target, and trying to overcome opposition.
At each step, there's a chance for expectations to be dashed or fulfilled, and the player learns something about his foe.
Players who feel like Counterspell is a flavorless "nope" button tend to have similar reactions to legendary resistances, but I still like your ideas here, as long as the players don't feel cheated. Learning that a particular creature can defend against one of the player's spells differently than they can in the official rules isn't every player's idea of a fun surprise, so use some finesse.
Contest Spell, like Counterspell, can go both ways. It's not fun for players to get automatically shut down, either.
That sounds fun! I can immediately think of a lot of alternative applications for spells to fit the bill. Figuring out which of your spells is right for the specific situation could be slower than a couple of dice rolls, but the creative solutions could be well worth the time.
Rejoining the thread here and giving some links to Counterspell in action.
Critical Role's Counterspell (take their playstyle with salt if your group doesn't play this way as some rules are bent for cool)
Jorphdan's Idea's for Counterspell (I don't know this youtuber, but they briefly touch on another elaborate Counterspell duel variant)
My own thoughts.
Getting back to the original post. I would not use Contest Spell in it's current iteration mainly to due to group-scaling for a spell that should be a reaction (e.g. two checks for each use of contest spell). This is taking into account my own group is small enough that it wouldn't matter for me, but I'm also thinking back on Dispel Magic, as we pointed out the two spells are linked. Even in the current Counterspell scenario things can get lengthy as even noted in Critical Role's usage provided the group/dm narrates appropriately.
It's been established that describing the interaction can happen in both scenarios. I don't think the additional roll is necessary if your group understands you want a description, but from what I can tell you don't like the automatic nature of current Counterspell. You mention one method where a DM want's an opposite force in their description for the Counterspell and that would require knowing what spell was cast. I agree that could be meta-gamey, which is why I wouldn't use that method either. You could re-flavor it as a distracting force instead, and require Counterspell to happen before any damage rolls or saving throws are made with the spell they intend to interrupt. This would be smallest change, and wouldn't require much fiddling with Dispel Magic.
If you wanted to go one step further you can tackle the automatic nature of both Dispel Magic, and Counterspell by removing that function so tension returns with the dice roll at all levels. A compensation would be is to add the level of the spell slot to the Counterspell caster's ability check like so: make an ability check using your spellcasting ability + the level of the slot used for this spell. This keeps casting it at higher slots relevant and goes back to matching power with power even though rolling dice has introduced some tension. Additionally the DC for both Dispel Magic and Counterspell can be raised to 13 (because both are 3rd level spells that would add +3 by default), but I wouldn't go beyond 15. While this adds a little bit of math we have still reduced things down to 1 roll.
Would I use a Counterspell variant with even these changes? Not really, no. I have grown up with Guild Wars 1 (and I guess 2) where interrupts were a key feature and even a party role. Rangers and Mesmers were classes in that game that featured interrupt abilities heavily so I'm personally not bothered by a monster being interrupted. The fun of interrupts is going to be subjective here. Also my group has played plenty of competitive games such as League of Legends, so them being 'CCed' or interrupted isn't a bother on them either.
Instead I would focus my efforts on encounter design or tactics. If a creature is aware that Counterspell exists why would they not attempt to blind their targets before unleashing their nifty spell? Maybe have two casters, and one could even have their own Counterspell or Blindness/Deafness or any other spell that might obstruct vision? Maybe include a special lair action, such as in Guild Wars 1 a boss literally gets enraged due to being interrupted causing something to occur afterward. In the end I run Counterspell as is. Typically I want the whole encounter to be the magical duel, and not one reaction spell. After all, what good is a Lich if he only has 1 trick?