can counterspell stop, for example, an aberrant cultist's mind rot or tentacle lash? Neither are explicitly called out as spells, nor is the word 'cast' mentioned.
What about a goblin hexer's hex stick? Or a mage's arcane burst, etc?
can counterspell stop, for example, an aberrant cultist's mind rot or tentacle lash?
Counterspell can stop spells. Monster abilities are not spells unless specifically stated to be spells, though the DM is free to rule that any given effect is actually a spell.
The Actions in a statblock are basically (and generally speaking) melee or ranged attacks (see Attack Notation), so they are their own thing; effects that force a saving throw (see Saving Throw Effect Notation); or spells.
And for spells, they fall under the Spellcasting action rules:
If a monster can cast any spells, its stat block lists the spells and provides the monster’s spellcasting ability, spell save DC (if any spells require a saving throw), and spell attack bonus (if any spells require an attack roll). [...]
So my issue is, I suppose, that some of those listed Actions are clearly emulating spells, which, if it were a player, would, I imagine, be counterspellable.
So counterspell suddenly becomes a whole lot weaker vs monster manual creatures more generally, and yet, it seems the intention was to remove unhelpful complexity from attack stats, rather than nerf player interactions with spell casting 'monsters'.
Eg mages have far fewer attack spells in their spell list with their arcane burst doing the heavy lifting.
But maybe I'm wrong about the intention and the counterspell immunity that seems to have been created IS intentional...
But maybe I'm wrong about the intention and the counterspell immunity that seems to have been created IS intentional...
Counterspell is a definite problem spell (it's essentially 'force someone to waste their action at the cost of a reaction') so a nerf was probably intended, though I'd rather they had just nerfed counterspell directly (say, remove the level check entirely; it just doesn't work if you don't a use a spell slot equal to the level of the spell being countered).
can counterspell stop, for example, an aberrant cultist's mind rot or tentacle lash? Neither are explicitly called out as spells, nor is the word 'cast' mentioned.
What about a goblin hexer's hex stick? Or a mage's arcane burst, etc?
Counterspell can stop spells. Monster abilities are not spells unless specifically stated to be spells, though the DM is free to rule that any given effect is actually a spell.
The Actions in a statblock are basically (and generally speaking) melee or ranged attacks (see Attack Notation), so they are their own thing; effects that force a saving throw (see Saving Throw Effect Notation); or spells.
And for spells, they fall under the Spellcasting action rules:
All good and helpful points.
So my issue is, I suppose, that some of those listed Actions are clearly emulating spells, which, if it were a player, would, I imagine, be counterspellable.
So counterspell suddenly becomes a whole lot weaker vs monster manual creatures more generally, and yet, it seems the intention was to remove unhelpful complexity from attack stats, rather than nerf player interactions with spell casting 'monsters'.
Eg mages have far fewer attack spells in their spell list with their arcane burst doing the heavy lifting.
But maybe I'm wrong about the intention and the counterspell immunity that seems to have been created IS intentional...
I suspect it is intentional, to give caster-type monsters options against a party with the Wall of Counterspells prepared.
Hmm. Food for thought. I think.
Counterspell is a definite problem spell (it's essentially 'force someone to waste their action at the cost of a reaction') so a nerf was probably intended, though I'd rather they had just nerfed counterspell directly (say, remove the level check entirely; it just doesn't work if you don't a use a spell slot equal to the level of the spell being countered).