The Diviner in Volo's Guide to Monsters had 24 spells available, at least 10+ of them usable in combat. The Diviner in Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse gets 12 spells, only 2+ usable in combat. But it also gets 3 attacks per turn that deal 20 radiant damage on average, and also an AoE that deals 10d8 psychic damage and stuns the targets.
If they are adding non-spell AoE save effects that are more than once every 3 turns that would be fine. I've only see a couple of statblocks (because I refuse to keep buy books that become obsolete 1-2 years later) but they looked like they turned spellcasters into basically just people-dragons - one AoE effect that recharges on 5 or 6 (aka breath weapon) and Multiattack for 3 attacks per turn that are just damage with no other interesting effects.
I'm unconvinced that making spellcasters no longer play like spellcasters and instead just make them identical to martial-brute monsters with a little bit of paint on them really solves anything though? Sure they are immune to Counterspell, but Wall of X, high ACs, all the dozens of things that cause DisAdv on attack rolls, grapple/restrained, etc... are all back on the table for disabling them just like they can disable all the non-spellcaster enemies. It kind of feels like a lack of understanding on the part of WotC for why DMs use spellcaster enemies - it's to provide a challenge to that EK with an AC 27, or the Druid that traps all the enemies in Transmute Rock, or the Wizard that just locks enemies under a dome of Wall of Force. As well as to provide variety of challenges - what's the point of Lesser/Greater Restoration or Freedom of Movement or Death Ward or Dispel Magic or Counterspell or Silence?
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but a bunch of players and a bunch of enemies standing in a blank featureless room or open field whacking each other has never been all that exciting to me.
At that point we're arguing about whether 3 uses of Legendary Resistance are enough and not whether Counterspell is breaking encounters.
Is Legendary Resistance fun? Is it engaging for the players? Do they get excited and go "Oh boy the enemy has legendary resistance we better come up with a new plan!" or "Oooh, legendary resistance, that's tricky, we're going to need to get creative."? Because IME when you use Legendary Resistance to just Nope! what the players are trying to do, they tend to just get sullen and frustrated and just swap to generic damage spells and abilities rather than doing anything interesting. Counterspell has a lot of problems sure, but when players fail at a Counterspell they don't just give up and shut down like they do with Legendary Resistance, they try it again or maybe they try to find a way to buff their check like BI or Enhance ability or Guidance, or they try to get their buddy who can also counterspell to get in closer so they can double-tap it.
The Diviner in Volo's Guide to Monsters had 24 spells available, at least 10+ of them usable in combat. The Diviner in Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse gets 12 spells, only 2+ usable in combat. But it also gets 3 attacks per turn that deal 20 radiant damage on average, and also an AoE that deals 10d8 psychic damage and stuns the targets.
If they are adding non-spell AoE save effects that are more than once every 3 turns that would be fine. I've only see a couple of statblocks (because I refuse to keep buy books that become obsolete 1-2 years later) but they looked like they turned spellcasters into basically just people-dragons - one AoE effect that recharges on 5 or 6 (aka breath weapon) and Multiattack for 3 attacks per turn that are just damage with no other interesting effects.
I'm unconvinced that making spellcasters no longer play like spellcasters and instead just make them identical to martial-brute monsters with a little bit of paint on them really solves anything though? Sure they are immune to Counterspell, but Wall of X, high ACs, all the dozens of things that cause DisAdv on attack rolls, grapple/restrained, etc... are all back on the table for disabling them just like they can disable all the non-spellcaster enemies. It kind of feels like a lack of understanding on the part of WotC for why DMs use spellcaster enemies - it's to provide a challenge to that EK with an AC 27, or the Druid that traps all the enemies in Transmute Rock, or the Wizard that just locks enemies under a dome of Wall of Force. As well as to provide variety of challenges - what's the point of Lesser/Greater Restoration or Freedom of Movement or Death Ward or Dispel Magic or Counterspell or Silence?
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but a bunch of players and a bunch of enemies standing in a blank featureless room or open field whacking each other has never been all that exciting to me.
You have a lot of good points here and I agree with them. But this thread is about Counterspell. If the new spellcasters are immune to Counterspell (your words), then is Counterspell really better now than ever? Because that was what we were discussing. We could talk about the new spellcaster design in terms of fun or challenge or the other things that you said. But that doesn't change the fact that, because of this new design, Counterspell is weaker than ever, and not the other way around.
At that point we're arguing about whether 3 uses of Legendary Resistance are enough and not whether Counterspell is breaking encounters.
Is Legendary Resistance fun? Is it engaging for the players? Do they get excited and go "Oh boy the enemy has legendary resistance we better come up with a new plan!" or "Oooh, legendary resistance, that's tricky, we're going to need to get creative."? Because IME when you use Legendary Resistance to just Nope! what the players are trying to do, they tend to just get sullen and frustrated and just swap to generic damage spells and abilities rather than doing anything interesting. Counterspell has a lot of problems sure, but when players fail at a Counterspell they don't just give up and shut down like they do with Legendary Resistance, they try it again or maybe they try to find a way to buff their check like BI or Enhance ability or Guidance, or they try to get their buddy who can also counterspell to get in closer so they can double-tap it.
If a player gets sullen and frustrated because they couldn't one-shot the BBEG, that's on them. As a player I don't expect to win encounters like that on the first round of combat because the enemy failed their saving throw against a save-or-suck spell. Actually, winning an encounter like would make me sullen and frustrated, that would be very anticlimactic.
Is Legendary Resistance fun? Is it engaging for the players?
It is when it stops an encounter that's meant to be exciting and climactic from getting shut down on round 1.
Because IME when you use Legendary Resistance to just Nope! what the players are trying to do, they tend to just get sullen and frustrated and just swap to generic damage spells and abilities rather than doing anything interesting.
The DM can just not push the Nope button if they think pushing it is going to make players less happy. There's also no rule the DM has to tell the players that Legendary Resistance kicked in. I don't think any player wants to hear that. Our DM just tells us if something succeeded or failed and then we don't have to be tortured with the knowledge that the monster would've rolled low enough to fail.
Either way, I don't see what makes Counterspell so special it should be able to bypass the one mechanic designed to give bosses an escape hatch when there's like 100 other spells that don't get that special treatment, many of which are much higher level.
The DM can just not push the Nope button if they think pushing it is going to make players less happy. There's also no rule the DM has to tell the players that Legendary Resistance kicked in. I don't think any player wants to hear that. Our DM just tells us if something succeeded or failed and then we don't have to be tortured with the knowledge that the monster would've rolled low enough to fail.
I kind of would want to hear that. There's multiple reasons a monster might succeed against an effect. Perhaps they used a legendary resistance, perhaps they just rolled high, perhaps they have strong defenses on that particular saving throw, or perhaps they are outright immune to the effect.
If they used a legendary resistance or just rolled high, it makes sense to try doing the same thing again next round. It might even be a really good idea to keep trying if they were willing to expend a legendary resistance. If they have strong defenses against that saving throw or are immune to the effect that I'm attempting to inflict then it doesn't make sense to try the same thing again, I should try something else.
So I'd like SOME kind of feedback to have some kind of hint whether what I'm trying is or isn't outright futile. It might be in the form of a DM just saying it consumed a legendary resistance, or it could be housed in more flavorful language, but it would be something I appreciate hearing regardless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If they are adding non-spell AoE save effects that are more than once every 3 turns that would be fine. I've only see a couple of statblocks (because I refuse to keep buy books that become obsolete 1-2 years later) but they looked like they turned spellcasters into basically just people-dragons - one AoE effect that recharges on 5 or 6 (aka breath weapon) and Multiattack for 3 attacks per turn that are just damage with no other interesting effects.
I'm unconvinced that making spellcasters no longer play like spellcasters and instead just make them identical to martial-brute monsters with a little bit of paint on them really solves anything though? Sure they are immune to Counterspell, but Wall of X, high ACs, all the dozens of things that cause DisAdv on attack rolls, grapple/restrained, etc... are all back on the table for disabling them just like they can disable all the non-spellcaster enemies. It kind of feels like a lack of understanding on the part of WotC for why DMs use spellcaster enemies - it's to provide a challenge to that EK with an AC 27, or the Druid that traps all the enemies in Transmute Rock, or the Wizard that just locks enemies under a dome of Wall of Force. As well as to provide variety of challenges - what's the point of Lesser/Greater Restoration or Freedom of Movement or Death Ward or Dispel Magic or Counterspell or Silence?
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but a bunch of players and a bunch of enemies standing in a blank featureless room or open field whacking each other has never been all that exciting to me.
Is Legendary Resistance fun? Is it engaging for the players? Do they get excited and go "Oh boy the enemy has legendary resistance we better come up with a new plan!" or "Oooh, legendary resistance, that's tricky, we're going to need to get creative."? Because IME when you use Legendary Resistance to just Nope! what the players are trying to do, they tend to just get sullen and frustrated and just swap to generic damage spells and abilities rather than doing anything interesting. Counterspell has a lot of problems sure, but when players fail at a Counterspell they don't just give up and shut down like they do with Legendary Resistance, they try it again or maybe they try to find a way to buff their check like BI or Enhance ability or Guidance, or they try to get their buddy who can also counterspell to get in closer so they can double-tap it.
You have a lot of good points here and I agree with them. But this thread is about Counterspell. If the new spellcasters are immune to Counterspell (your words), then is Counterspell really better now than ever? Because that was what we were discussing. We could talk about the new spellcaster design in terms of fun or challenge or the other things that you said. But that doesn't change the fact that, because of this new design, Counterspell is weaker than ever, and not the other way around.
If a player gets sullen and frustrated because they couldn't one-shot the BBEG, that's on them. As a player I don't expect to win encounters like that on the first round of combat because the enemy failed their saving throw against a save-or-suck spell. Actually, winning an encounter like would make me sullen and frustrated, that would be very anticlimactic.
It is when it stops an encounter that's meant to be exciting and climactic from getting shut down on round 1.
The DM can just not push the Nope button if they think pushing it is going to make players less happy. There's also no rule the DM has to tell the players that Legendary Resistance kicked in. I don't think any player wants to hear that. Our DM just tells us if something succeeded or failed and then we don't have to be tortured with the knowledge that the monster would've rolled low enough to fail.
Either way, I don't see what makes Counterspell so special it should be able to bypass the one mechanic designed to give bosses an escape hatch when there's like 100 other spells that don't get that special treatment, many of which are much higher level.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I kind of would want to hear that. There's multiple reasons a monster might succeed against an effect.
Perhaps they used a legendary resistance, perhaps they just rolled high, perhaps they have strong defenses on that particular saving throw, or perhaps they are outright immune to the effect.
If they used a legendary resistance or just rolled high, it makes sense to try doing the same thing again next round. It might even be a really good idea to keep trying if they were willing to expend a legendary resistance.
If they have strong defenses against that saving throw or are immune to the effect that I'm attempting to inflict then it doesn't make sense to try the same thing again, I should try something else.
So I'd like SOME kind of feedback to have some kind of hint whether what I'm trying is or isn't outright futile. It might be in the form of a DM just saying it consumed a legendary resistance, or it could be housed in more flavorful language, but it would be something I appreciate hearing regardless.