What do people think of the new counterspell? Outwardly, it looks like it just costs you a spell slot, and your opponent loses nothing but their action/bonus/reaction. They retain their own spell slot, which to me feels like they're simply being delayed whilst you're experiencing a loss.
What do people think of the new counterspell? Outwardly, it looks like it just costs you a spell slot, and your opponent loses nothing but their action/bonus/reaction. They retain their own spell slot, which to me feels like they're simply being delayed whilst you're experiencing a loss.
A target failing to save against Counterspell waste both it's action and spell slot, if any.
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The creature makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell dissipates with no effect, and the action, Bonus Action, or Reaction used to cast it is wasted. If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended."
You save your party from the ill effects of the spell, which is not nothing. And with combats lasting their 3-5 rounds, you’ve taken away 20-33% of the enemy’s chances to hurt you. That’s not a loss, that’s a trade.
Not all combats last that short a time. The loss of the enemy's spell slot used to be the big draw of a counterspell, at least in every group I've played with. Perhaps that's less of a priority now that WotC has begun giving creatures spell-like abilities and less spells, with the former not using spell slots at all?
What do people think of the new counterspell? Outwardly, it looks like it just costs you a spell slot, and your opponent loses nothing but their action/bonus/reaction. They retain their own spell slot, which to me feels like they're simply being delayed whilst you're experiencing a loss.
This is ignoring the power of action economy, anything that robs the other side of action economy will always be worthwhile but putting numbers to action economy is difficult, needless to say it shouldn't be under-estimated.
Additionally it's information the party can act on, If you delay an incoming AoE, that is letting the party know that next turn there is likely an incoming AoE and too disperse more or if you delay another spell then to take appropriate action encase that is cast on the next turn.
The vast majority of them do in my experience, and I don't see that changing with the 2024 rules.
Anyways the 2014 Counterspell was a bit too strong in my opinion. The DC wasn't particularly high (DC 15 on a 5th level spell is only considered a "medium" difficult DC) and it was fairly easy to either jack up the ability check (Bardic Inspiration, Lucky, Jack of all Trades, Enhance Ability) or have two counterspellers in a party. Lots of monsters that should be really scary lost a huge part of their kit because any attempt at spellcasting would be immediately shut down. Making it a CON save makes it much harder to game, monsters with Legendary Resistance always have an out, and the new "only one leveled spell per turn" rule eliminates the "I cast a spell - it gets counterspelled - I counterspell the counterspell" situation (which I'd argue shouldn't be allowed, but a lot of people thought it's kosher.)
Also just on a narrative level it always felt strange to me that you could lose a spell slot for a spell you didn't finish casting.
The vast majority of them do in my experience, and I don't see that changing with the 2024 rules.
Anyways the 2014 Counterspell was a bit too strong in my opinion. The DC wasn't particularly high (DC 15 on a 5th level spell is only considered a "medium" difficult DC) and it was fairly easy to either jack up the ability check (Bardic Inspiration, Lucky, Jack of all Trades, Enhance Ability) or have two counterspellers in a party. Lots of monsters that should be really scary lost a huge part of their kit because any attempt at spellcasting would be immediately shut down. Making it a CON save makes it much harder to game, monsters with Legendary Resistance always have an out, and the new "only one leveled spell per turn" rule eliminates the "I cast a spell - it gets counterspelled - I counterspell the counterspell" situation (which I'd argue shouldn't be allowed, but a lot of people thought it's kosher.)
Also just on a narrative level it always felt strange to me that you could lose a spell slot for a spell you didn't finish casting.
This makes it easier to understand. Thank you. Guess I'll wait to see how I feel about it after experiencing it in game.
Not all combats last that short a time. The loss of the enemy's spell slot used to be the big draw of a counterspell, at least in every group I've played with. Perhaps that's less of a priority now that WotC has begun giving creatures spell-like abilities and less spells, with the former not using spell slots at all?
That's the major part of it, yeah. This rewrite of Counterspell actually makes it much weaker against PCs than it is against NPCs. Since Monsters of the Multiverse, NPCs are written not to use spell slots at all, but rather "casts per day". The new Counterspell language doesn't say anything about preserving casts per day, so I would presume the casts are still expended. If this is correct, what we get is a Counterspell that burns resources when used on NPCs, but not when used on PCs.
Not all combats last that short a time. The loss of the enemy's spell slot used to be the big draw of a counterspell, at least in every group I've played with. Perhaps that's less of a priority now that WotC has begun giving creatures spell-like abilities and less spells, with the former not using spell slots at all?
I don’t think an enemy losing a spell slot was ever really that big a deal. 95% of enemies are only going to be around for one fight. They’ve typically got more slots than chances to use them so losing one doesn’t appreciably hurt them. It not like a PC who needs to manage slots across a day.
And, yes, you definitely hit on another factor with many monsters not really using spells slots any more.
So the action economy aspect has already been mentioned. There's something else to consider: You only get the spell slot back. That doesn't apply if the casting uses other resources, like racial casting or x/day spells (like many monsters have).
This actually seems like an oversight to me. I feel like the intent is that the spell was never cast (and therefore whatever resources are usually expended are not expended) but that the action of attempting to cast the spell indeed uses up the action. But for some reason, it wasn't written like that and instead the description seems to imply in several different places that the spell was cast. And yet, somehow the spell slot wasn't used. Which is weird.
Oversight or not, that's RAW. And while it might be, it could also be something to work on giving players a bit of an extra lift. After all, it would mean PCs are slowed down by Counterspell as opposed to most monsters being stopped by it.
I wonder if the designers read the Level-Up Advanced 5e's version of Counterspell when they designed this. There, when your spell is countered you can use your reaction to "reshape the fraying weaves" and cast a different spell at half-level or lower. I'm floating this idea to my group, but I think we'll stick with "get back the spell slot" for its simplicity. Even so, I think that could have been part of their inspiration ("the caster recollects some of the mana they'd placed in the now-fraying weaves" or something like that).
Not all combats last that short a time. The loss of the enemy's spell slot used to be the big draw of a counterspell, at least in every group I've played with. Perhaps that's less of a priority now that WotC has begun giving creatures spell-like abilities and less spells, with the former not using spell slots at all?
RAW Monsters no longer have spell slots. Thus, counterspell removes the spell. (they now have x/day mechanics - I won't get into the debate on whether or not x/day on a monster is equivalent to a spell slot or not, because they aren't as written.
Not all combats last that short a time. The loss of the enemy's spell slot used to be the big draw of a counterspell, at least in every group I've played with. Perhaps that's less of a priority now that WotC has begun giving creatures spell-like abilities and less spells, with the former not using spell slots at all?
RAW Monsters no longer have spell slots. Thus, counterspell removes the spell. (they now have x/day mechanics - I won't get into the debate on whether or not x/day on a monster is equivalent to a spell slot or not, because they aren't as written.
I agree about removing the spell when using the x/Day mechanic, although I'm not sure if the new Monster Manual will make exceptions, with some monsters still using spell slots
Monsters indeed do not have spell slots in the new MM, they have daily uses. A similar case is when spells are cast through charges of a magic item, or with Magic Initiate feat, or given uses via racial spellcasting. Are we to assume all these cases do expend resources when counterspelled?
Monsters indeed do not have spell slots in the new MM, they have daily uses. A similar case is when spells are cast through charges of a magic item, or with Magic Initiate feat, or given uses via racial spellcasting. Are we to assume all these cases do expend resources when counterspelled?
What do people think of the new counterspell? Outwardly, it looks like it just costs you a spell slot, and your opponent loses nothing but their action/bonus/reaction. They retain their own spell slot, which to me feels like they're simply being delayed whilst you're experiencing a loss.
Eternal #DnD Dungeon Master
A target failing to save against Counterspell waste both it's action and spell slot, if any.
What I'm reading is this:
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The creature makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell dissipates with no effect, and the action, Bonus Action, or Reaction used to cast it is wasted. If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended."
It states that they do not lose the spell slot.
Eternal #DnD Dungeon Master
You save your party from the ill effects of the spell, which is not nothing.
And with combats lasting their 3-5 rounds, you’ve taken away 20-33% of the enemy’s chances to hurt you. That’s not a loss, that’s a trade.
Not all combats last that short a time. The loss of the enemy's spell slot used to be the big draw of a counterspell, at least in every group I've played with. Perhaps that's less of a priority now that WotC has begun giving creatures spell-like abilities and less spells, with the former not using spell slots at all?
Eternal #DnD Dungeon Master
This is ignoring the power of action economy, anything that robs the other side of action economy will always be worthwhile but putting numbers to action economy is difficult, needless to say it shouldn't be under-estimated.
Additionally it's information the party can act on, If you delay an incoming AoE, that is letting the party know that next turn there is likely an incoming AoE and too disperse more or if you delay another spell then to take appropriate action encase that is cast on the next turn.
Fair enough.
Eternal #DnD Dungeon Master
The vast majority of them do in my experience, and I don't see that changing with the 2024 rules.
Anyways the 2014 Counterspell was a bit too strong in my opinion. The DC wasn't particularly high (DC 15 on a 5th level spell is only considered a "medium" difficult DC) and it was fairly easy to either jack up the ability check (Bardic Inspiration, Lucky, Jack of all Trades, Enhance Ability) or have two counterspellers in a party. Lots of monsters that should be really scary lost a huge part of their kit because any attempt at spellcasting would be immediately shut down. Making it a CON save makes it much harder to game, monsters with Legendary Resistance always have an out, and the new "only one leveled spell per turn" rule eliminates the "I cast a spell - it gets counterspelled - I counterspell the counterspell" situation (which I'd argue shouldn't be allowed, but a lot of people thought it's kosher.)
Also just on a narrative level it always felt strange to me that you could lose a spell slot for a spell you didn't finish casting.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This makes it easier to understand. Thank you. Guess I'll wait to see how I feel about it after experiencing it in game.
Eternal #DnD Dungeon Master
This is one of my favorite changes to the spell.
There used to be some debate about this, and the consensus was that you'd lose the slot. Now it's clear how it works.
That's the major part of it, yeah. This rewrite of Counterspell actually makes it much weaker against PCs than it is against NPCs. Since Monsters of the Multiverse, NPCs are written not to use spell slots at all, but rather "casts per day". The new Counterspell language doesn't say anything about preserving casts per day, so I would presume the casts are still expended. If this is correct, what we get is a Counterspell that burns resources when used on NPCs, but not when used on PCs.
I don’t think an enemy losing a spell slot was ever really that big a deal. 95% of enemies are only going to be around for one fight. They’ve typically got more slots than chances to use them so losing one doesn’t appreciably hurt them. It not like a PC who needs to manage slots across a day.
And, yes, you definitely hit on another factor with many monsters not really using spells slots any more.
So the action economy aspect has already been mentioned. There's something else to consider: You only get the spell slot back. That doesn't apply if the casting uses other resources, like racial casting or x/day spells (like many monsters have).
This actually seems like an oversight to me. I feel like the intent is that the spell was never cast (and therefore whatever resources are usually expended are not expended) but that the action of attempting to cast the spell indeed uses up the action. But for some reason, it wasn't written like that and instead the description seems to imply in several different places that the spell was cast. And yet, somehow the spell slot wasn't used. Which is weird.
Oversight or not, that's RAW. And while it might be, it could also be something to work on giving players a bit of an extra lift. After all, it would mean PCs are slowed down by Counterspell as opposed to most monsters being stopped by it.
I wonder if the designers read the Level-Up Advanced 5e's version of Counterspell when they designed this. There, when your spell is countered you can use your reaction to "reshape the fraying weaves" and cast a different spell at half-level or lower. I'm floating this idea to my group, but I think we'll stick with "get back the spell slot" for its simplicity. Even so, I think that could have been part of their inspiration ("the caster recollects some of the mana they'd placed in the now-fraying weaves" or something like that).
RAW Monsters no longer have spell slots. Thus, counterspell removes the spell. (they now have x/day mechanics - I won't get into the debate on whether or not x/day on a monster is equivalent to a spell slot or not, because they aren't as written.
I agree about removing the spell when using the x/Day mechanic, although I'm not sure if the new Monster Manual will make exceptions, with some monsters still using spell slots
If that change/trend official, then?
Monsters indeed do not have spell slots in the new MM, they have daily uses. A similar case is when spells are cast through charges of a magic item, or with Magic Initiate feat, or given uses via racial spellcasting. Are we to assume all these cases do expend resources when counterspelled?
The spell/charge is lost, yes.
There's a related thread here: Do Monster's "X per day" spells count as "Spell slots" 2024 - Rules & Game Mechanics