Every D&D YouTuber has said so, many of them recently (fair note: haven’t watched any of their solutions, I’ve just seen half a hundred ‘COUNTERSPELL SUCKS” videos pop up in my tray lately). Every DM knows the pain of a player belting out ‘COUNTERSPELL’ when their climactic spellmonster boss isn’t even halfway through naming the spell they’re casting. Even players have occasionally been on the other end of it, with a DM simply announcing “the cultist mage-priest casts Counterspell”. Many DMs never use Counterspell on the players since it’s such a cheap shot, leading to players getting reckless with their own spellcasting and devaluing abilities that allow a character to resist magical tomscrewery. In every case, a spell is just lost. No save, no check, no nada, unless one tries to burn a low-level slot to counter a high-level spell.
Even then, the spell is poorly worded and feels bad to use – casting an eighth-level Counterspell to stop a ninth-level Meteor Storm is no more effective than casting a base third-level Counterspell. It is bad and it should feel bad.
The spell’s design simply does not match the credo of 5 Edition. Everything in 5e hangs on the dice. There is no free lunch – any ability which gives the user a sure-bet option that just automatically works is either very high level, hedged around with numerous prerequisites and caveats, or more often both. Dispel Magic is similarly Not Okay, but it tends to be less egregious in the moment than Counterspell. But don’t worry. Dispel Magic will get its turn. This post, however, is about Counterspell.
We’ve all seen lots of different attempts at fixing this. Many by banning the spell outright, which is certainly one solution. Others by creating intricate mage duel rules, or trying to revert to the old “you can only counter a spell by casting the same spell except backwards” thing, which is unintuitive and bad.
As a DM whose game is approaching the levels and situations where Counterspell would start being a problem, I decided to tackle the issue myself. My goals:
>Make Counterspell respect the ethos of 5e and require a godsdamned dice roll. >Avoid overcomplication – the spell should be no harder or more onerous to resolve than a typical attack of opportunity, i.e. the Standard Reaction. >Avoid making Counterspell worthless. The spell needs reworking, but it should still absolutely be an important piece of a spellcaster’s kit, and a spell someone can choose to specialize in. Which leads into: >Avoid breaking class abilities, such as Improved Abjuration or Jack of All Trades, that work with the original Counterspell. The reworked spell should drop as seamlessly as possible into existing builds.
I believe I’ve come up with a design that fulfills these criteria and more, and created a version of Counterspell that I’m not only happy to allow my players to take as a DM, but a version of Counterspell I am manifestly willing to use against my players in turn. Lemme show you.
Counterspell (YuRevised)
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell, directing a jab of metaphysical energy at the spell in progress. The creature must immediately make a concentration check with a DC equivalent to 10+ your spellcasting ability modifier. If it succeeds, your attempt to Counterspell fails and the target's spell functions normally. If it fails, its spell is lost and the action used to cast it is wasted.
If you have an ability or class feature that would allow you to add a bonus to the ability check made to use the normal version of Counterspell, you may instead add that number to the DC of the concentration check.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, add 1 to the save DC for each level above 3rd.
And there it is. That’s all there is to it. Beautiful, isn’t it?
The best part is that it slots so seamlessly into already existing game mechanics. Concentration checks are an accepted and well understood aspect of spellcasting, and it absolutely makes sense that somebody trying to sucker punch your spell would provoke a test of whether or not you could focus well enough to retain the weave. Spells and abilities which make you better at succeeding on concentration checks also make you better at resisting Counterspell attempts, while abilities that make you worse at succeeding on concentration checks (a’la Mage Slayer or the like) reduce your ability to hold a spell in the face of a Counter attempt.
It also intuitively makes high-level Counterspells much more valuable, since every level you pump into the spell boosts the DC and makes it more likely your counter works. A regular wizard casting Counterspell at 3 level with an Intelligence of 20 imposes a DC 15 Concentration check on his enemy. A wizard who casts the same spell with the same 20 Intelligence at 9 level imposes a much scarier DC 24 check. An abjurist casting that 9-level Counterspell imposes a DC 30 Concentration check, which even the most powerful and magically adept elder liches will be hard-pressed to make.
Players are encouraged to use the best spell slot they can to counter deadly enemy spells. The warlock’s access to Counterspell actually makes sense again – their Pact Magic slots are a permanent +2 bonus to any attempts they make to Counterspell (at highest level, anyways), which is always good. And because Counterspell is no longer a Fuggoff Buddy sure bet, the DM can absolutely start using it on the players. Fragile, low Con wizards with bad concentration checks are easy to disrupt, while sorcerers with healthy boosts to Con and proficiency in concentration checks are harder to bother, which goes some slight way towards redressing how terrible the imbalance between those classes is.
Either way, players now have to be wary of getting Counterspelled themselves and stop putting every egg they can into the same high-level-spell basket. Which makes for more exciting gameplay, and makes enemy spellcasters that much more dangerous. As they should rightly be.
Let me know what you think! if there's enough interest, and once my paranoid self is assured there's no spelling or formatting errors, I can flip it public so people can grab it to impose on their own players.
Is this really that much different than the current counter spell? Yeah you have removed the auto succeed part, but this is just a more difficult DC check, the OG version is DC = 10+the spells level Vs a check made with spell casting ability, while yours is DC = 10+ability mod+ X. So where in the OG the DC caps at 19, you're version caps at 24. I don't really see much of a change in all honesty.
Youtube hates counter spell because is "takes away the fun." Yet I've seen it used in so many clutch moments that it has definitely made for memorable fights. I think the biggest issue DMs face (might even call it a mistake) is that they simply say "The Wizards casts a fireball at 6th level" Giving the players meta knowledge that they will act on. If the spell is merely described by the DM as "You see the wizard make motions with his hand and watch as a motif of fire forms in it, growing larger and larger of the next few seconds." Now the player can most likely see its a fireball, but they might now discern the level. Making it so the player has to make a choice and hope they used the right spell slot.
I see no issue with what you have done, I just don't see it a being so game changing from the OG. But some people who dislike the auto succeed might enjoy your way. I know you said you are someone paranoid about opinion. Let me say this, if this was my first introduction to counterspell, I would like it. I just, for me, don't see the need for the change. But overall nice work on it! I'm sure some will like this change.
The idea is that the check is always made. You're imposing a concentration check on the target, which allows it to use its concentration-retaining abilities if it has them, and allows you to use any abilities you have that interfere with concentration. It hooks Counterspell into actual game mechanics, rather than the spell just sitting out on its lonesome being a Free Nope Button to whatever spells you don't like.
As a DM, Counterspell is especially problematic because you really can't use it on the PCs. If you have a spellcaster with Counterspell and plenty of Counterspell ammo, that spellcaster will get your table flipped. PCs do NOT tolerate their moves being canceled/negated without any say-so or counterplay, or even a roll of the dice. If the DM can't use something on the PCs without the players seeing it as manifestly unfair, that's a sign of terrible game design. This puts the counterplay and the roll of the dice back in, which makes Counterspell feel more like it belongs in the rest of 5e and lets the DM buy in on that move-countermove game herself.
Honestly I think counterspell is mostly fine as is. Its just widely misunderstood for example you target the caster not the spell meaning it has 2 conditions in order to be castable: 1. You need to know that a spell is being cast and 2. it must be CAST within 60ft of you. Someone throwing fireball at you from 90ft away is uncounterable. The problem is the RAW conditions outlined are routinely handwaved which inadvertently makes counterspell far more powerful than it actually is.
Personally I think the main issue with counterspell is if you think of it as just snapping your fingers and causing nothing to happen. In reality a player is using their reaction plus a 3rd level or higher spell slot to actually do something, so it feels a lot less like a cheap shot if you think of it more as the counterspelling player drawing away magically energy and funnelling it harmlessly into the ground, or actively cancelling it with a spell of their own.
It's also wrong to think of counterspell causing nothing to happen for the original caster; sure, the spell they wanted to cast failed, but in doing so they forced a player to burn a 3rd level or better spell slot and their reaction, so it's not like they got absolutely nothing out of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
My main issue with counterspell isn't what was described here but rather, that you can get (in extreme cases) chain-reaction counterspelling. As in: Monster starts casting a spell, Player A counterspells, monster counterspells the counterspell, player B counterspells the counterspell of the counterspell, monster B counterspells the counterspell of the counterspell of the counterspell, and, well... Yuck.
I'm not really sure how to resolve this.
So far I have not faced this in my campaign because they're not high level enough to have it. Whether this type of situation could occur will depend largely on the players. If one of them takes counterspell, then the monsters are getting it too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I don't care if "players don't like having their actions negated." They should be fair-minded enough to accept that if they get to do it, so do the boss monsters. If they're not fair-minded, why am I playing with them?
So we'll have to see how it goes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
My main issue with counterspell isn't what was described here but rather, that you can get (in extreme cases) chain-reaction counterspelling. As in: Monster starts casting a spell, Player A counterspells, monster counterspells the counterspell, player B counterspells the counterspell of the counterspell, monster B counterspells the counterspell of the counterspell of the counterspell, and, well... Yuck.
Why "yuck"? To me that kind of thing is awesome if you want to be; a bunch of mages all fighting for control over the spell, pouring magical energy into fighting each other until there's no more to give, or someone makes a mistake (counterspelled at too low a level and failed the roll), or blinked (could have countered but didn't).
Suddenly one spell that might actually not have been all that bad has burned the spell slots and reactions of multiple casters, preventing them from using Shield or such against something else, something which no spell can normally do. Not to mention it means those casters now can't cast damage of their own. For the DM it's about balancing; if the players counterspell everything then absolutely push back, but if they just counterspell the worst stuff here and there then leave it alone and/or occasionally do the same.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The big problem with a DM counterspelling a player is that players typically say "I cast X spell on Y target using a Z level spellslot," giving the DM's spellcaster meta knowledge. DM's on the other hand will often just say "the spellcaster begins casting a spell," at which point the players want to counterspell. This is how I see it done a lot, anyway, and it's certainly not fair.
The only decent solution I know of is to tell the players that when they're casting their spells, don't say what it is right away; just say "I'm going to cast a spell with a Z level spellslot" and then wait for the DM to either say "the enemy spellcaster attempts to counterspell it" or "okay, go ahead."
Unfortunately you kind of have to have the player tell you what spellslot level they are using beforehand, otherwise a less-trustworthy player will either claim they were casting it at the lowest or highest level, depending on whether they want to avoid risking a higher level slot or have a higher chance of the counterspell failing. If you fully trust your players to never lie (but come on, we're all tempted) then you can forgo this.
Either that, or you have to give the players just as much meta knowledge of the NPC spellcaster's spells as they give you, which is super lame.
My main issue with counterspell isn't what was described here but rather, that you can get (in extreme cases) chain-reaction counterspelling. As in: Monster starts casting a spell, Player A counterspells, monster counterspells the counterspell, player B counterspells the counterspell of the counterspell, monster B counterspells the counterspell of the counterspell of the counterspell, and, well... Yuck.
I have had this happen in my games, and seen it happen in streamed games, and it's usually actually surprisingly fun times.
The big problem with a DM counterspelling a player is that players typically say "I cast X spell on Y target using a Z level spellslot," giving the DM's spellcaster meta knowledge. DM's on the other hand will often just say "the spellcaster begins casting a spell," at which point the players want to counterspell. This is how I see it done a lot, anyway, and it's certainly not fair.
The DM shouldn't be basing their decision on what the player is casting, but on things like how hurt the creature is, whether it's seen the same spell cast already, or has seen a lot of powerful spells cast already in general, that kind of thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
One of the issues with the 'Meta Knowledge' argument is that combat is supposed to make at least some attempt to be quick, snappy, and frenetic. Spending a hundred words on a long soliloquy describing the Elder Megalich drawing arcane runes in the air, cavorting and whirling through eldritch geometries painful to the uninitiated eye as they carve a wound in the fabric of reality through which magic bleeds and forms...yadda yadda yadda. Sure, that sounds great in your head, and sometimes overselling a spell like that can absolutely set the tone for a given encounter. But having to do that every single time your critters cast a spell in an attempt to fox players and force them to guess whether or not a given spell is worth Countering slows the game down and is fraught with complications of its own. Observe:
"The monster starts casting a spell" [Huge, flowery description of spellcasting here] "Do any of you attempt to Counterspell?" Players: [Ninety seconds of hemming, hawing, and drag]. "...Nah." "Okay. The monster's Circle of Death - " Players: "WAIT WHAT. Nuh! I take it back, I wanna Counterspell!" [Three solid, immersion and pacing-breaking minutes of arguing.]
Most games I've observed/played have critters, both player and DM, simply announcing their spell. Especially if the DM is doing their job and trying to keep a time pressure on players' turns in combat. In this situation, RAW Counterspell can be 'metagamed', though frankly I wouldn't even call it such. "Metagaming" is a fake problem; if a player knows something they can't then not know that thing. You can either complain about metagaming ruining your game or you can align the players' knowledge, actions, and motivations with their characters' and get the metagaming to work for you instead of against you.
As for Counterspell pile-ups, given the fact that virtually nothing outside of custom monsters ever has Counterspell, it's basically a nonfactor. But if it becomes a factor in your games, the easy thing is "Counterspell cannot target itself - you can't interrupt an interrupt." Before people blow my face off on this one: assuming Counterspell is roughly the same overall speed across everybody who casts it, in order to Counterspell a Counterspell, your Counterspell would have to be in progress before the Counterspell you're trying to Counterspell is even cast, so your Counterspell finishes before the Counterspell it's targeting can Counterspell the original spell.
ANYWAYS. It's pretty easy to see that M:tG rules aside - and that's all that RAW Counterspell is, it's just a crappy transplant from blue decks in M:tG - one cannot counter a counter. One can simply hope the original spell is hardy enough to bull through the counter unaffected, which is what I was hoping for. Nevertheless, some interesting discussions here. Good to see people thinking it over, even if they end up disagreeing with me.
You're kind of twisting what I said, and assuming a rather silly situation.
I didn't say that the DM needs to give a big flowery description of the spellcasting every time. Things like that should be sprinkled in here and there when appropriate, but 99% of the time all that needs to be said is "the spellcaster begins casting a spell," which is what I said. If you do want to add a bit so players can take a guess at the spell/kind of spell, a quick statement is all you need; not several paragraphs. "The spellcaster begins casting a spell; a spark of flame appears at the tip of his pointed finger." Quite obviously fireball in this case, but a quick and easy description.
Doing it the way I've described, you need to set the ground rules beforehand. You can't say every time "the spellcaster begins casting a spell, does anyone counterspell?" You need to let your players know well in advance (session 0, or at least when they first reach the level [5ish] that counterspell becomes a thing) that both you and them - when casting a spell - are going to say "I am casting a spell," wait a beat, and if nobody announces they counterspell then you carry on. Don't allow "oh actually I would have counterspelled that." You need to make it clear that - for both you and them - the moment after "I am casting a spell" is proclaimed is the only chance to counterspell.
It's a reaction, and you need to treat it as such. Would you allow a player to, after a creature has moved away from them and attacked someone else, say "actually I think I would have taken an opportunity attack against them?" No, you probably wouldn't, so why do it differently for this reaction?
I'm not sure why you're saying nothing but custom monsters have the spell. Plenty of creatures do, including the standard Mage.
I am an Abjurer by trade, and was ready to provide a rebuttal to this when I came in, but . . . you make a really good point. This makes Counterspell more of a niche tool that can be built around, and becomes less useful if you don't, which is something that I never knew I wanted, but absolutely do. Go forth and submit!
I really think that counterspell's issues are very campaign dependent. For example, does the DM like to use lots of spell casters, or are most of the magical opponents using spell like abilities? Does combat often happen at long range? Is there a sorcerer who has subtle metamagic? The biggest issue is that it becomes a spell slot tax when both sides have access to it, and this will cause the spell casters to run out of spell slots too quickly.
Also, if you describe spellcasting as something like 'zazic clutches the orb in his hand and mutters an incantation. Arcane energy shoots out and fire shoots out from his hand. Make a dexterity saving throw' from the beginning, players will get used to the understanding that they don't automatically know what spell and at what level is being cast. If / when a player takes counterspell, let them know at what point in the description they need to counter the spell.
It also intuitively makes high-level Counterspells much more valuable, since every level you pump into the spell boosts the DC and makes it more likely your counter works. A regular wizard casting Counterspell at 3 level with an Intelligence of 20 imposes a DC 15 Concentration check on his enemy. A wizard who casts the same spell with the same 20 Intelligence at 9 level imposes a much scarier DC 24 check. An abjurist casting that 9-level Counterspell imposes a DC 30 Concentration check, which even the most powerful and magically adept elder liches will be hard-pressed to make.
With your revision as written, instead of DC 15, DC 24, and DC 30, it would actually be DC 15, DC 21, and DC 27, since the first three spell levels are already included in the base spell. Of note is the fact that for a 16/17 Int Wizard (non-Abjurer), which is typical for a 5th level Wizard, but definitely low for top-tier, Counterspell works exactly the same except that a check is always required. This is effectively a strict downgrade to begin with, but that may not be a bad thing. If you were to add the three levels to the base spell's DC, your example DCs would be 18, 24, and 30. I'll leave the matter of what relevance this holds to you.
Good catch, Urquhart. Apologies for slowing down on this, DDB has been misbehaving in flagrant manner for me lately. Ugh.
Regardless. It's fascinating to me seeing how many folks find this revision a waste of time because they have made a habit of shrouding spellcasting from their monsters. I've never seen or heard of anyone doing that save as a random thought exercise, both in public games and in talking to my player group about games they've played elsewhere. Under that rule, RAW Counterspell is indeed less of a cheese curd, though I still don't like its odd scaling. The spell still doesn't actually reward upcasting unless you upcast enough - dumping an eighth-level slot into trying to stop a ninth-level spell should have more impact than doing the same with a third-level slot.
Will admit, I'm reconsidering. Not my desire to make Counterspell suck less, but whether this design is as universal as I'd believed. Hm.
EDIT: Secondary question, for the folks who never announce their spells to their players. How does this work from the player side? Are players permitted to shroud their spells from the DM, or do you simply trust yourself not to Abuse Meta Knowledge with your spellcaster players? if the latter, I'm curious as to why it's okay for the DM to metagame but not the players?
Are players permitted to shroud their spells from the DM, or do you simply trust yourself not to Abuse Meta Knowledge with your spellcaster players? if the latter, I'm curious as to why it's okay for the DM to metagame but not the players?
I have been trying to figure out how I am going to work this, should counterspell come into play in a serious way in the campaign. As I say, my PCs are currently just turned level 4 so it is not yet an issue. But I can foresee that it might be.
From the text of counterspell and the XGE rule stating you have to use a reaction in combat to discern what spell is being cast (the rule stating "a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast"), I cannot possibly rule that you could both identify and counter a spell at the same time (characters who take a reaction can't take another until their next turn in the combat, per PHB). So from the player side, it is fairly straightforward. Metagaming has nothing to do with it. You cannot identify the spell before you counter it or you will not be able to counter it.
Therefore, if the Sorcerer in our party (the only one who could take it) takes counterspell, I would have to describe the enemy "beginning to cast a spell" and then wait to see if he wants to counter. I would have to warn him once he takes it (and I will) that once I declare the spell's effects (e.g., fireball explodes in their midst) it is now too late to counter the spell. So as a DM, I just have to remember (1) to describe the caster making gestures or pulling out a spell component, chanting, and the like, and (2) to pause after that to give the player a chance to counter. The sorcerer is an old friend of mine so I'm confident we will get our timing worked out. He already has a Fatespinner (Homebrewed) Sorcerer who can use some fate abilities to force die re-rolls as a reaction and he has been able to do that just fine, in terms of timing. Again, the key is to pause after I roll a result, so that he has a chance to decide, before the damage is done or what have you, if he wants to counter. Usually, it's obvious (like when the Orc chief rolls a Nat 20 and he forces a re-roll).
From the DM side, I would not, consciously, metagame. And I mostly trust myself to reason whether a monster or NPC would just generically 'want to interrupt a cast' of a PC, vs. only interrupting because it is a certain spell that the PC is casting. However, I think to keep things fair, what I may do is ask the players to state first, "I am going to cast a spell," without telling me what it is, and then if the monsters can counter, I will be able to make the decision nice and clean, without worrying about whether my extra DM knowledge has clouded my judgement.
I mean, realistically I don't know why that knowledge but not all the other knowledge I have about the PCs would be different in some way. I trust myself to know what all their prepared spells are, how many hp they have, what their AC is, what languages they speak, etc, when making up encounters or running monsters. I don't believe I've ever unfairly used that knowledge "against" the party. But, I also try to make objective rules for myself so that I can try to have the monsters or NPCs behave realistically but also fairly, and that I am not injecting unconsciously some extra knowledge without realizing it.
I may end up making some arbitrary pseudo-objective rules for myself regarding counterspell, that the NPCs and monsters will follow. I'm not sure what those will be yet... still pondering.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Are players permitted to shroud their spells from the DM, or do you simply trust yourself not to Abuse Meta Knowledge with your spellcaster players? if the latter, I'm curious as to why it's okay for the DM to metagame but not the players?
I have been trying to figure out how I am going to work this, should counterspell come into play in a serious way in the campaign. As I say, my PCs are currently just turned level 4 so it is not yet an issue. But I can foresee that it might be.
From the text of counterspell and the XGE rule stating you have to use a reaction in combat to discern what spell is being cast (the rule stating "a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast"), I cannot possibly rule that you could both identify and counter a spell at the same time (characters who take a reaction can't take another until their next turn in the combat, per PHB). So from the player side, it is fairly straightforward. Metagaming has nothing to do with it. You cannot identify the spell before you counter it or you will not be able to counter it.
Therefore, if the Sorcerer in our party (the only one who could take it) takes counterspell, I would have to describe the enemy "beginning to cast a spell" and then wait to see if he wants to counter. I would have to warn him once he takes it (and I will) that once I declare the spell's effects (e.g., fireball explodes in their midst) it is now too late to counter the spell. So as a DM, I just have to remember (1) to describe the caster making gestures or pulling out a spell component, chanting, and the like, and (2) to pause after that to give the player a chance to counter. The sorcerer is an old friend of mine so I'm confident we will get our timing worked out. He already has a Fatespinner (Homebrewed) Sorcerer who can use some fate abilities to force die re-rolls as a reaction and he has been able to do that just fine, in terms of timing. Again, the key is to pause after I roll a result, so that he has a chance to decide, before the damage is done or what have you, if he wants to counter. Usually, it's obvious (like when the Orc chief rolls a Nat 20 and he forces a re-roll).
From the DM side, I would not, consciously, metagame. And I mostly trust myself to reason whether a monster or NPC would just generically 'want to interrupt a cast' of a PC, vs. only interrupting because it is a certain spell that the PC is casting. However, I think to keep things fair, what I may do is ask the players to state first, "I am going to cast a spell," without telling me what it is, and then if the monsters can counter, I will be able to make the decision nice and clean, without worrying about whether my extra DM knowledge has clouded my judgement.
I mean, realistically I don't know why that knowledge but not all the other knowledge I have about the PCs would be different in some way. I trust myself to know what all their prepared spells are, how many hp they have, what their AC is, what languages they speak, etc, when making up encounters or running monsters. I don't believe I've ever unfairly used that knowledge "against" the party. But, I also try to make objective rules for myself so that I can try to have the monsters or NPCs behave realistically but also fairly, and that I am not injecting unconsciously some extra knowledge without realizing it.
I may end up making some arbitrary pseudo-objective rules for myself regarding counterspell, that the NPCs and monsters will follow. I'm not sure what those will be yet... still pondering.
If you are worried about meta gamte knowledge influencing your decision for an NPC to use the Counterspell, then flip a coin or roll a dice. Tails/Even use it, and Heads/Odds you don't use it.
As for the XGE rule, you could allow the same PC to blurt a two word shout about the identified spell in order to promote some teamwork. That isn't something I have tested personally, but in theory it does dip into action economy and helps cooperation.
If you are worried about meta gamte knowledge influencing your decision for an NPC to use the Counterspell, then flip a coin or roll a dice. Tails/Even use it, and Heads/Odds you don't use it.
Random rolls are unsatisfying to me. If it's an intelligent monster, it should be making tactical decisions about what to do in combat. I would not have an intelligent monster attacking PCs by random roll, except maybe at the start of combat when the PCs have given him no specific reason to consider one to be more threatening or vulnerable than the others.
As for the XGE rule, you could allow the same PC to blurt a two word shout about the identified spell in order to promote some teamwork. That isn't something I have tested personally, but in theory it does dip into action economy and helps cooperation.
It could, perhaps work, if there were more than one caster who could recognize the spell. As it is, if it's arcane, the sorcerer can either recognize it or cast counterspell, since he's the only one who would be able to do either thing. The other characters are a ranger, cleric, and fighter/rogue, none of which would have any chance of recognizing an arcane spell.
I suppose the cleric might be able to use a reaction to recognize a divine spell and shout a warning to the sorcerer. That, I'd probably allow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I like the idea of making the counterspell DC scale with the counterspell's level. But in doing so you removed the feature where the counterspell DC scales with the *original* spell's level. For me, that tips the balance of power too far in the direction of the creature doing the counterspell.
The official counterspell is fairly powerful. If I use my reaction + a 3rd level spell to negate an opponent's action, that puts a good dent in their action economy while hardly affecting mine. Fortunately for my opponent, higher level spells are harder to counterspell.
This new counterspell version doesn't have that caveat. It doesn't automatically shut down low level spells, but it's a lot more punishing for high level spells. And the original spellcaster now has to make a CON-based save, which spellcasters will be much worse at than when using their spellcasting ability.
In sum, this seems too powerful. Counterspelling now seems better than... spelling, to the point where if it's me versus some other mage with counterspell, I'd rather wait for them to cast spells so that I can counter them than use my spells to be otherwise useful in the battle.
Counterspell.
It sucks.
Every D&D YouTuber has said so, many of them recently (fair note: haven’t watched any of their solutions, I’ve just seen half a hundred ‘COUNTERSPELL SUCKS” videos pop up in my tray lately). Every DM knows the pain of a player belting out ‘COUNTERSPELL’ when their climactic spellmonster boss isn’t even halfway through naming the spell they’re casting. Even players have occasionally been on the other end of it, with a DM simply announcing “the cultist mage-priest casts Counterspell”. Many DMs never use Counterspell on the players since it’s such a cheap shot, leading to players getting reckless with their own spellcasting and devaluing abilities that allow a character to resist magical tomscrewery. In every case, a spell is just lost. No save, no check, no nada, unless one tries to burn a low-level slot to counter a high-level spell.
Even then, the spell is poorly worded and feels bad to use – casting an eighth-level Counterspell to stop a ninth-level Meteor Storm is no more effective than casting a base third-level Counterspell. It is bad and it should feel bad.
The spell’s design simply does not match the credo of 5 Edition. Everything in 5e hangs on the dice. There is no free lunch – any ability which gives the user a sure-bet option that just automatically works is either very high level, hedged around with numerous prerequisites and caveats, or more often both. Dispel Magic is similarly Not Okay, but it tends to be less egregious in the moment than Counterspell. But don’t worry. Dispel Magic will get its turn. This post, however, is about Counterspell.
We’ve all seen lots of different attempts at fixing this. Many by banning the spell outright, which is certainly one solution. Others by creating intricate mage duel rules, or trying to revert to the old “you can only counter a spell by casting the same spell except backwards” thing, which is unintuitive and bad.
As a DM whose game is approaching the levels and situations where Counterspell would start being a problem, I decided to tackle the issue myself. My goals:
>Make Counterspell respect the ethos of 5e and require a godsdamned dice roll.
>Avoid overcomplication – the spell should be no harder or more onerous to resolve than a typical attack of opportunity, i.e. the Standard Reaction.
>Avoid making Counterspell worthless. The spell needs reworking, but it should still absolutely be an important piece of a spellcaster’s kit, and a spell someone can choose to specialize in. Which leads into:
>Avoid breaking class abilities, such as Improved Abjuration or Jack of All Trades, that work with the original Counterspell. The reworked spell should drop as seamlessly as possible into existing builds.
I believe I’ve come up with a design that fulfills these criteria and more, and created a version of Counterspell that I’m not only happy to allow my players to take as a DM, but a version of Counterspell I am manifestly willing to use against my players in turn. Lemme show you.
And there it is. That’s all there is to it. Beautiful, isn’t it?
The best part is that it slots so seamlessly into already existing game mechanics. Concentration checks are an accepted and well understood aspect of spellcasting, and it absolutely makes sense that somebody trying to sucker punch your spell would provoke a test of whether or not you could focus well enough to retain the weave. Spells and abilities which make you better at succeeding on concentration checks also make you better at resisting Counterspell attempts, while abilities that make you worse at succeeding on concentration checks (a’la Mage Slayer or the like) reduce your ability to hold a spell in the face of a Counter attempt.
It also intuitively makes high-level Counterspells much more valuable, since every level you pump into the spell boosts the DC and makes it more likely your counter works. A regular wizard casting Counterspell at 3 level with an Intelligence of 20 imposes a DC 15 Concentration check on his enemy. A wizard who casts the same spell with the same 20 Intelligence at 9 level imposes a much scarier DC 24 check. An abjurist casting that 9-level Counterspell imposes a DC 30 Concentration check, which even the most powerful and magically adept elder liches will be hard-pressed to make.
Players are encouraged to use the best spell slot they can to counter deadly enemy spells. The warlock’s access to Counterspell actually makes sense again – their Pact Magic slots are a permanent +2 bonus to any attempts they make to Counterspell (at highest level, anyways), which is always good. And because Counterspell is no longer a Fuggoff Buddy sure bet, the DM can absolutely start using it on the players. Fragile, low Con wizards with bad concentration checks are easy to disrupt, while sorcerers with healthy boosts to Con and proficiency in concentration checks are harder to bother, which goes some slight way towards redressing how terrible the imbalance between those classes is.
Either way, players now have to be wary of getting Counterspelled themselves and stop putting every egg they can into the same high-level-spell basket. Which makes for more exciting gameplay, and makes enemy spellcasters that much more dangerous. As they should rightly be.
Let me know what you think! if there's enough interest, and once my paranoid self is assured there's no spelling or formatting errors, I can flip it public so people can grab it to impose on their own players.
Please do not contact or message me.
Is this really that much different than the current counter spell? Yeah you have removed the auto succeed part, but this is just a more difficult DC check, the OG version is DC = 10+the spells level Vs a check made with spell casting ability, while yours is DC = 10+ability mod+ X. So where in the OG the DC caps at 19, you're version caps at 24. I don't really see much of a change in all honesty.
Youtube hates counter spell because is "takes away the fun." Yet I've seen it used in so many clutch moments that it has definitely made for memorable fights. I think the biggest issue DMs face (might even call it a mistake) is that they simply say "The Wizards casts a fireball at 6th level" Giving the players meta knowledge that they will act on. If the spell is merely described by the DM as "You see the wizard make motions with his hand and watch as a motif of fire forms in it, growing larger and larger of the next few seconds." Now the player can most likely see its a fireball, but they might now discern the level. Making it so the player has to make a choice and hope they used the right spell slot.
I see no issue with what you have done, I just don't see it a being so game changing from the OG. But some people who dislike the auto succeed might enjoy your way. I know you said you are someone paranoid about opinion. Let me say this, if this was my first introduction to counterspell, I would like it. I just, for me, don't see the need for the change. But overall nice work on it! I'm sure some will like this change.
The idea is that the check is always made. You're imposing a concentration check on the target, which allows it to use its concentration-retaining abilities if it has them, and allows you to use any abilities you have that interfere with concentration. It hooks Counterspell into actual game mechanics, rather than the spell just sitting out on its lonesome being a Free Nope Button to whatever spells you don't like.
As a DM, Counterspell is especially problematic because you really can't use it on the PCs. If you have a spellcaster with Counterspell and plenty of Counterspell ammo, that spellcaster will get your table flipped. PCs do NOT tolerate their moves being canceled/negated without any say-so or counterplay, or even a roll of the dice. If the DM can't use something on the PCs without the players seeing it as manifestly unfair, that's a sign of terrible game design. This puts the counterplay and the roll of the dice back in, which makes Counterspell feel more like it belongs in the rest of 5e and lets the DM buy in on that move-countermove game herself.
Or at least, such was my intent.
Please do not contact or message me.
Honestly I think counterspell is mostly fine as is. Its just widely misunderstood for example you target the caster not the spell meaning it has 2 conditions in order to be castable: 1. You need to know that a spell is being cast and 2. it must be CAST within 60ft of you. Someone throwing fireball at you from 90ft away is uncounterable. The problem is the RAW conditions outlined are routinely handwaved which inadvertently makes counterspell far more powerful than it actually is.
Personally I think the main issue with counterspell is if you think of it as just snapping your fingers and causing nothing to happen. In reality a player is using their reaction plus a 3rd level or higher spell slot to actually do something, so it feels a lot less like a cheap shot if you think of it more as the counterspelling player drawing away magically energy and funnelling it harmlessly into the ground, or actively cancelling it with a spell of their own.
It's also wrong to think of counterspell causing nothing to happen for the original caster; sure, the spell they wanted to cast failed, but in doing so they forced a player to burn a 3rd level or better spell slot and their reaction, so it's not like they got absolutely nothing out of it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
My main issue with counterspell isn't what was described here but rather, that you can get (in extreme cases) chain-reaction counterspelling. As in: Monster starts casting a spell, Player A counterspells, monster counterspells the counterspell, player B counterspells the counterspell of the counterspell, monster B counterspells the counterspell of the counterspell of the counterspell, and, well... Yuck.
I'm not really sure how to resolve this.
So far I have not faced this in my campaign because they're not high level enough to have it. Whether this type of situation could occur will depend largely on the players. If one of them takes counterspell, then the monsters are getting it too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I don't care if "players don't like having their actions negated." They should be fair-minded enough to accept that if they get to do it, so do the boss monsters. If they're not fair-minded, why am I playing with them?
So we'll have to see how it goes.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Why "yuck"? To me that kind of thing is awesome if you want to be; a bunch of mages all fighting for control over the spell, pouring magical energy into fighting each other until there's no more to give, or someone makes a mistake (counterspelled at too low a level and failed the roll), or blinked (could have countered but didn't).
Suddenly one spell that might actually not have been all that bad has burned the spell slots and reactions of multiple casters, preventing them from using Shield or such against something else, something which no spell can normally do. Not to mention it means those casters now can't cast damage of their own. For the DM it's about balancing; if the players counterspell everything then absolutely push back, but if they just counterspell the worst stuff here and there then leave it alone and/or occasionally do the same.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The big problem with a DM counterspelling a player is that players typically say "I cast X spell on Y target using a Z level spellslot," giving the DM's spellcaster meta knowledge. DM's on the other hand will often just say "the spellcaster begins casting a spell," at which point the players want to counterspell. This is how I see it done a lot, anyway, and it's certainly not fair.
The only decent solution I know of is to tell the players that when they're casting their spells, don't say what it is right away; just say "I'm going to cast a spell with a Z level spellslot" and then wait for the DM to either say "the enemy spellcaster attempts to counterspell it" or "okay, go ahead."
Unfortunately you kind of have to have the player tell you what spellslot level they are using beforehand, otherwise a less-trustworthy player will either claim they were casting it at the lowest or highest level, depending on whether they want to avoid risking a higher level slot or have a higher chance of the counterspell failing. If you fully trust your players to never lie (but come on, we're all tempted) then you can forgo this.
Either that, or you have to give the players just as much meta knowledge of the NPC spellcaster's spells as they give you, which is super lame.
I have had this happen in my games, and seen it happen in streamed games, and it's usually actually surprisingly fun times.
The DM shouldn't be basing their decision on what the player is casting, but on things like how hurt the creature is, whether it's seen the same spell cast already, or has seen a lot of powerful spells cast already in general, that kind of thing.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
"Shouldn't be" being the keywords there. You certainly shouldn't let this knowledge impact your decisions, but that's easier said than done.
One of the issues with the 'Meta Knowledge' argument is that combat is supposed to make at least some attempt to be quick, snappy, and frenetic. Spending a hundred words on a long soliloquy describing the Elder Megalich drawing arcane runes in the air, cavorting and whirling through eldritch geometries painful to the uninitiated eye as they carve a wound in the fabric of reality through which magic bleeds and forms...yadda yadda yadda. Sure, that sounds great in your head, and sometimes overselling a spell like that can absolutely set the tone for a given encounter. But having to do that every single time your critters cast a spell in an attempt to fox players and force them to guess whether or not a given spell is worth Countering slows the game down and is fraught with complications of its own. Observe:
"The monster starts casting a spell" [Huge, flowery description of spellcasting here] "Do any of you attempt to Counterspell?"
Players: [Ninety seconds of hemming, hawing, and drag]. "...Nah."
"Okay. The monster's Circle of Death - "
Players: "WAIT WHAT. Nuh! I take it back, I wanna Counterspell!"
[Three solid, immersion and pacing-breaking minutes of arguing.]
Most games I've observed/played have critters, both player and DM, simply announcing their spell. Especially if the DM is doing their job and trying to keep a time pressure on players' turns in combat. In this situation, RAW Counterspell can be 'metagamed', though frankly I wouldn't even call it such. "Metagaming" is a fake problem; if a player knows something they can't then not know that thing. You can either complain about metagaming ruining your game or you can align the players' knowledge, actions, and motivations with their characters' and get the metagaming to work for you instead of against you.
As for Counterspell pile-ups, given the fact that virtually nothing outside of custom monsters ever has Counterspell, it's basically a nonfactor. But if it becomes a factor in your games, the easy thing is "Counterspell cannot target itself - you can't interrupt an interrupt." Before people blow my face off on this one: assuming Counterspell is roughly the same overall speed across everybody who casts it, in order to Counterspell a Counterspell, your Counterspell would have to be in progress before the Counterspell you're trying to Counterspell is even cast, so your Counterspell finishes before the Counterspell it's targeting can Counterspell the original spell.
Counterspell. Counterspell, Counterspell. C-c-c-COUNTERSPELL. spell://Counter
ANYWAYS. It's pretty easy to see that M:tG rules aside - and that's all that RAW Counterspell is, it's just a crappy transplant from blue decks in M:tG - one cannot counter a counter. One can simply hope the original spell is hardy enough to bull through the counter unaffected, which is what I was hoping for. Nevertheless, some interesting discussions here. Good to see people thinking it over, even if they end up disagreeing with me.
Please do not contact or message me.
You're kind of twisting what I said, and assuming a rather silly situation.
I didn't say that the DM needs to give a big flowery description of the spellcasting every time. Things like that should be sprinkled in here and there when appropriate, but 99% of the time all that needs to be said is "the spellcaster begins casting a spell," which is what I said. If you do want to add a bit so players can take a guess at the spell/kind of spell, a quick statement is all you need; not several paragraphs. "The spellcaster begins casting a spell; a spark of flame appears at the tip of his pointed finger." Quite obviously fireball in this case, but a quick and easy description.
Doing it the way I've described, you need to set the ground rules beforehand. You can't say every time "the spellcaster begins casting a spell, does anyone counterspell?" You need to let your players know well in advance (session 0, or at least when they first reach the level [5ish] that counterspell becomes a thing) that both you and them - when casting a spell - are going to say "I am casting a spell," wait a beat, and if nobody announces they counterspell then you carry on. Don't allow "oh actually I would have counterspelled that." You need to make it clear that - for both you and them - the moment after "I am casting a spell" is proclaimed is the only chance to counterspell.
It's a reaction, and you need to treat it as such. Would you allow a player to, after a creature has moved away from them and attacked someone else, say "actually I think I would have taken an opportunity attack against them?" No, you probably wouldn't, so why do it differently for this reaction?
I'm not sure why you're saying nothing but custom monsters have the spell. Plenty of creatures do, including the standard Mage.
I am an Abjurer by trade, and was ready to provide a rebuttal to this when I came in, but . . . you make a really good point. This makes Counterspell more of a niche tool that can be built around, and becomes less useful if you don't, which is something that I never knew I wanted, but absolutely do. Go forth and submit!
I really think that counterspell's issues are very campaign dependent. For example, does the DM like to use lots of spell casters, or are most of the magical opponents using spell like abilities? Does combat often happen at long range? Is there a sorcerer who has subtle metamagic? The biggest issue is that it becomes a spell slot tax when both sides have access to it, and this will cause the spell casters to run out of spell slots too quickly.
Also, if you describe spellcasting as something like 'zazic clutches the orb in his hand and mutters an incantation. Arcane energy shoots out and fire shoots out from his hand. Make a dexterity saving throw' from the beginning, players will get used to the understanding that they don't automatically know what spell and at what level is being cast. If / when a player takes counterspell, let them know at what point in the description they need to counter the spell.
I do have an important correction to point out:
With your revision as written, instead of DC 15, DC 24, and DC 30, it would actually be DC 15, DC 21, and DC 27, since the first three spell levels are already included in the base spell. Of note is the fact that for a 16/17 Int Wizard (non-Abjurer), which is typical for a 5th level Wizard, but definitely low for top-tier, Counterspell works exactly the same except that a check is always required. This is effectively a strict downgrade to begin with, but that may not be a bad thing. If you were to add the three levels to the base spell's DC, your example DCs would be 18, 24, and 30. I'll leave the matter of what relevance this holds to you.
Good catch, Urquhart. Apologies for slowing down on this, DDB has been misbehaving in flagrant manner for me lately. Ugh.
Regardless. It's fascinating to me seeing how many folks find this revision a waste of time because they have made a habit of shrouding spellcasting from their monsters. I've never seen or heard of anyone doing that save as a random thought exercise, both in public games and in talking to my player group about games they've played elsewhere. Under that rule, RAW Counterspell is indeed less of a cheese curd, though I still don't like its odd scaling. The spell still doesn't actually reward upcasting unless you upcast enough - dumping an eighth-level slot into trying to stop a ninth-level spell should have more impact than doing the same with a third-level slot.
Will admit, I'm reconsidering. Not my desire to make Counterspell suck less, but whether this design is as universal as I'd believed. Hm.
EDIT: Secondary question, for the folks who never announce their spells to their players. How does this work from the player side? Are players permitted to shroud their spells from the DM, or do you simply trust yourself not to Abuse Meta Knowledge with your spellcaster players? if the latter, I'm curious as to why it's okay for the DM to metagame but not the players?
Please do not contact or message me.
I have been trying to figure out how I am going to work this, should counterspell come into play in a serious way in the campaign. As I say, my PCs are currently just turned level 4 so it is not yet an issue. But I can foresee that it might be.
From the text of counterspell and the XGE rule stating you have to use a reaction in combat to discern what spell is being cast (the rule stating "a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast"), I cannot possibly rule that you could both identify and counter a spell at the same time (characters who take a reaction can't take another until their next turn in the combat, per PHB). So from the player side, it is fairly straightforward. Metagaming has nothing to do with it. You cannot identify the spell before you counter it or you will not be able to counter it.
Therefore, if the Sorcerer in our party (the only one who could take it) takes counterspell, I would have to describe the enemy "beginning to cast a spell" and then wait to see if he wants to counter. I would have to warn him once he takes it (and I will) that once I declare the spell's effects (e.g., fireball explodes in their midst) it is now too late to counter the spell. So as a DM, I just have to remember (1) to describe the caster making gestures or pulling out a spell component, chanting, and the like, and (2) to pause after that to give the player a chance to counter. The sorcerer is an old friend of mine so I'm confident we will get our timing worked out. He already has a Fatespinner (Homebrewed) Sorcerer who can use some fate abilities to force die re-rolls as a reaction and he has been able to do that just fine, in terms of timing. Again, the key is to pause after I roll a result, so that he has a chance to decide, before the damage is done or what have you, if he wants to counter. Usually, it's obvious (like when the Orc chief rolls a Nat 20 and he forces a re-roll).
From the DM side, I would not, consciously, metagame. And I mostly trust myself to reason whether a monster or NPC would just generically 'want to interrupt a cast' of a PC, vs. only interrupting because it is a certain spell that the PC is casting. However, I think to keep things fair, what I may do is ask the players to state first, "I am going to cast a spell," without telling me what it is, and then if the monsters can counter, I will be able to make the decision nice and clean, without worrying about whether my extra DM knowledge has clouded my judgement.
I mean, realistically I don't know why that knowledge but not all the other knowledge I have about the PCs would be different in some way. I trust myself to know what all their prepared spells are, how many hp they have, what their AC is, what languages they speak, etc, when making up encounters or running monsters. I don't believe I've ever unfairly used that knowledge "against" the party. But, I also try to make objective rules for myself so that I can try to have the monsters or NPCs behave realistically but also fairly, and that I am not injecting unconsciously some extra knowledge without realizing it.
I may end up making some arbitrary pseudo-objective rules for myself regarding counterspell, that the NPCs and monsters will follow. I'm not sure what those will be yet... still pondering.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If you are worried about meta gamte knowledge influencing your decision for an NPC to use the Counterspell, then flip a coin or roll a dice. Tails/Even use it, and Heads/Odds you don't use it.
As for the XGE rule, you could allow the same PC to blurt a two word shout about the identified spell in order to promote some teamwork. That isn't something I have tested personally, but in theory it does dip into action economy and helps cooperation.
Random rolls are unsatisfying to me. If it's an intelligent monster, it should be making tactical decisions about what to do in combat. I would not have an intelligent monster attacking PCs by random roll, except maybe at the start of combat when the PCs have given him no specific reason to consider one to be more threatening or vulnerable than the others.
It could, perhaps work, if there were more than one caster who could recognize the spell. As it is, if it's arcane, the sorcerer can either recognize it or cast counterspell, since he's the only one who would be able to do either thing. The other characters are a ranger, cleric, and fighter/rogue, none of which would have any chance of recognizing an arcane spell.
I suppose the cleric might be able to use a reaction to recognize a divine spell and shout a warning to the sorcerer. That, I'd probably allow.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I like the idea of making the counterspell DC scale with the counterspell's level. But in doing so you removed the feature where the counterspell DC scales with the *original* spell's level. For me, that tips the balance of power too far in the direction of the creature doing the counterspell.
The official counterspell is fairly powerful. If I use my reaction + a 3rd level spell to negate an opponent's action, that puts a good dent in their action economy while hardly affecting mine. Fortunately for my opponent, higher level spells are harder to counterspell.
This new counterspell version doesn't have that caveat. It doesn't automatically shut down low level spells, but it's a lot more punishing for high level spells. And the original spellcaster now has to make a CON-based save, which spellcasters will be much worse at than when using their spellcasting ability.
In sum, this seems too powerful. Counterspelling now seems better than... spelling, to the point where if it's me versus some other mage with counterspell, I'd rather wait for them to cast spells so that I can counter them than use my spells to be otherwise useful in the battle.