I was wondering why it targeted CON of all things, but the concentration point makes it make sense to me now.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, because personally, Counterspell really can trivialize boss encounters by countering their super-powerful mega spells that show off their grand might.
On the other hand, giving enemies Counterspell can also be a pain since it can just end a player's turn if they're a pure spellcaster.
Counterspell feels like one of those spells where you will always have issues with it, no matter what you do with it. But this is a nice attempt at trying to make it less problematic.
Constitution is fortitude.
ALLLLL kinds of fortitude, including mental fortitude.
Con's a weird stat though that outside of hit dice, people really don't use much so they don't really understand it. It's purely an endurance stat, and used for all tests of endurance/willpower. It has no skills attached, and weirdly it's barbs, fighters, and sorcerers that get the proficiency... which I guess actually makes sense that it's confused with physical endurance only (physical prowess is between dex and str.)
It's kind of strange that it's a Con save. As if you're gut punching with your counterspell or something. Too much is on Con saves already, and it's the highest saveing throw on most monsters. It also means that the biggest, most muscular enemies are harder to counterspell. Hit the gym to make your magic uncounterable!
I agree that upcasting the spell should add +1 to the save DC. I also think that warcaster should have grant advantage on the con save against counterspell.
Mage slayer should also add a +1 to counterspell DC.
I like the new counterspell. i wouldn't mind some tweaks like i can see an argument for a save using your casting stat. That feels like it would fit their design note better imo. I kind of think concentration checks(which I kind of think this should be) should do that in general but up the DC of the checks significantly to compensate for everyone being better at them now.
Because an INT save makes no sense. It assumes that a natural spellcaster like a sorcerer, a pimal spellcaster like a druid or a divine caster like a cleric are for some strange reason less capable of dealing with somebody being able to counterspell them.
It would be just as easy to say that wizards should be the most easily interrupted since they rely on their knowledge and thus have more that could be interrupted. Meanwhile other forms of spell casting are usually more innate to the caster and thus harder to interrupt.
A concentration save makes simply the most sense for maintaining a spell, it is what all spellcasters already use for maintaining spells that could be interrupted by other means, like taking damage while concentrating on a spell. This also makes sense since it means sorcerer, who's spell casting is innate, is the hardest to counterspell.
What could be argued is that wizards be the best at counterspell, which could be implemented as an arcana check to identify the spell they are attempting to counter spell, but having both a check and a save would be OTT. But since there should be a save, a concentration save makes more sense than an arcana check.
. This also makes sense since it means sorcerer, who's spell casting is innate, is the hardest to counterspell.
It would make just as much sense to say Divine casters are the hardest to interrupt and their source of magic is outside of them or from the gods so less is on them to keep a spell going, or wisdom saves in general as they are tied closer to mental will power which concentrating is thematically tied to more, or wizards as they are the most trained in how magic works. And if its about being a innate caster why con? Con has nothing to do with the sorcerers casting ability. They just happen to have con as their good save. With 5es one good one bad save good being wis/reflex/con odds are at least one caster was going to get con so they all didn't get wisdom.
My point being is none of it makes more sense than the other or more appropriately you can write flavor text to make any choice make sense. On a balance level did sorcerers need this edge are they the weakest casting class or something before looking at concentration. Maybe in the 2014 version as their spells known were rough but even then I'd say warlocks were a step below. Is it for monsters which generally have good con saves? Maybe though the casting monsters generally don't. Because almost every PC caster is going to have a decent con so they all but sorcerer are in the same boat? The choice seems more game design than thematic sense based. And I'm not opposed to it being con, just wish there was a better feel for what the stats meant and covered in the game as certain stats like Con feel really vague. My instinct would have been for it to be one of the mental stats wisdom most likely as its used to resist mental influences reads like willpower or the ability to hold concentration, though int maybe as its ability to see through illusions could be seen as the ability to focus through distraction, maybe charisma as its tied to a force of will that you exert out instead of resist like wisdom. Con I mean I guess you resist physical things with it so it kind of fits. But holding concentration on a spell just feels more mental concentration based not physical.
I was wondering why it targeted CON of all things, but the concentration point makes it make sense to me now.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, because personally, Counterspell really can trivialize boss encounters by countering their super-powerful mega spells that show off their grand might.
On the other hand, giving enemies Counterspell can also be a pain since it can just end a player's turn if they're a pure spellcaster.
Counterspell feels like one of those spells where you will always have issues with it, no matter what you do with it. But this is a nice attempt at trying to make it less problematic.
Constitution is fortitude.
ALLLLL kinds of fortitude, including mental fortitude.
Con's a weird stat though that outside of hit dice, people really don't use much so they don't really understand it. It's purely an endurance stat, and used for all tests of endurance/willpower. It has no skills attached, and weirdly it's barbs, fighters, and sorcerers that get the proficiency... which I guess actually makes sense that it's confused with physical endurance only (physical prowess is between dex and str.)
But a counterspell has nothing to do with being resistant or fortitude. Counterspell is undoing a spell before it takes effect.
Your explanation would make sense if it were to nullify or resist the effects of a spell that has been cast on you, or that is going to affect you in some way.
I don't understand what they have tried to do with a constitution saving throw. It seems like a very strange decision to me.
Because it's effectively cancelling somebody's concentration while they're casting the spell.
Can counterspell only be used on a concentration spell?
If it is not, which it is not, that explanation is not valid. I'm not saying that they didn't want to go there, but it doesn't make sense to me.
Counterspell doesn't have to be used exclusively on concentration spells, no, but I think I'll point to the fact that non-concentration spells can need concentration checks to maintain.
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.
So, being interrupted in the process of casting a spell normally requires a Constitution saving throw. Obviously, this rule was only for longer casting times, but it makes sense for its logic to be applied when interrupting a shorter spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Because an INT save makes no sense. It assumes that a natural spellcaster like a sorcerer, a pimal spellcaster like a druid or a divine caster like a cleric are for some strange reason less capable of dealing with somebody being able to counterspell them.
It would be just as easy to say that wizards should be the most easily interrupted since they rely on their knowledge and thus have more that could be interrupted. Meanwhile other forms of spell casting are usually more innate to the caster and thus harder to interrupt.
A concentration save makes simply the most sense for maintaining a spell, it is what all spellcasters already use for maintaining spells that could be interrupted by other means, like taking damage while concentrating on a spell. This also makes sense since it means sorcerer, who's spell casting is innate, is the hardest to counterspell.
What could be argued is that wizards be the best at counterspell, which could be implemented as an arcana check to identify the spell they are attempting to counter spell, but having both a check and a save would be OTT. But since there should be a save, a concentration save makes more sense than an arcana check.
Traditionally, wizards have always been the masters of counterspell. In 3.5, for example, the Mastery of Counterspelling feat was an archmage feat (a prestige class that represented the supreme wizard). And if I'm not mistaken, Improved Counterspell had the prerequisite of being a wizard. Although it must also be said that in that edition counterspell was not a spell itself, but rather you could try to do counterspell by casting the same spell as your opponent (and with a check). You could also use dispel magic under certain circumstances.
In any case, how is a counterspell supposed to work? The caster identifies the spell (which is why in past editions you had to have that spell prepared), and uses the spell's energy to undo it before it takes effect. That clearly sounds like something you'd do with Int or, at most, Wis (but it sounds more like Int to me, honestly).
Edit: Anyway I'm not against changing that to be a saving throw. What does not convince me is that it is cons. Perhaps a saving throw with your spell caster ability would make more sense, and explain it in a way that you try to overpower your spell so it doesn't fall apart.
Because an INT save makes no sense. It assumes that a natural spellcaster like a sorcerer, a pimal spellcaster like a druid or a divine caster like a cleric are for some strange reason less capable of dealing with somebody being able to counterspell them.
It would be just as easy to say that wizards should be the most easily interrupted since they rely on their knowledge and thus have more that could be interrupted. Meanwhile other forms of spell casting are usually more innate to the caster and thus harder to interrupt.
A concentration save makes simply the most sense for maintaining a spell, it is what all spellcasters already use for maintaining spells that could be interrupted by other means, like taking damage while concentrating on a spell. This also makes sense since it means sorcerer, who's spell casting is innate, is the hardest to counterspell.
What could be argued is that wizards be the best at counterspell, which could be implemented as an arcana check to identify the spell they are attempting to counter spell, but having both a check and a save would be OTT. But since there should be a save, a concentration save makes more sense than an arcana check.
Traditionally, wizards have always been the masters of counterspell. In 3.5, for example, the Mastery of Counterspelling feat was an archmage feat (a prestige class that represented the supreme wizard). And if I'm not mistaken, Improved Counterspell had the prerequisite of being a wizard. Although it must also be said that in that edition counterspell was not a spell itself, but rather you could try to do counterspell by casting the same spell as your opponent (and with a check). You could also use dispel magic under certain circumstances.
In any case, how is a counterspell supposed to work? The caster identifies the spell (which is why in past editions you had to have that spell prepared), and uses the spell's energy to undo it before it takes effect. That clearly sounds like something you'd do with Int or, at most, Wis (but it sounds more like Int to me, honestly).
Edit: Anyway I'm not against changing that to be a saving throw. What does not convince me is that it is cons. Perhaps a saving throw with your spell caster ability would make more sense, and explain it in a way that you try to overpower your spell so it doesn't fall apart.
But that isn’t how 5e counterspell worked or how they want 5eR counterspell to work. 5e counterspell was basically as a caster starts to form magic you apply an equal amount of magic to snuff it out, or a lesser amount make a roll and maybe you snuff it. 5eR they are saying caster starts to cast a spell and you apply magic on them to stop it. In my mind it’s like they start to chant magic words and you hit them with magic to make them cough, or they are making intricate symbols with their hand and you hit them with magic that makes them wiggle their fingers. Honestly I always thought Mage Slayer should have a spell stopper portion to the feat. If someone tries to cast a spell within 5ft you get a reaction to make a melee attack against them.if the attack hits the caster makes a save, on a fail they don’t cast their spell. This part would be proficiency times a day.
Tangent question: Could Dispel Magic be changed to follow the same format? I'm having a hard time imagining Dispel Magic forcing a saving throw.
Dispel magic doesn't need the change as much since it only works on spells that persist (and have already been cast, so likely already had some effect), and it takes an action on your turn (except when using Quickened Spell) so it's more costly to use.
I could see an argument for using the counterspell format if the target spell is being concentrated upon (i.e- to make it more of a contest with the caster) but I'm not sure if that's needed really.
It's not needed but it would streamline the game to have both spells work in the same way like they do now, otherwise it's just a headache for these spells to work in two completely different ways.
It's not needed but it would streamline the game to have both spells work in the same way like they do now, otherwise it's just a headache for these spells to work in two completely different ways.
No it isn't. Counterspell and Dispel Magic are two unrelated spells with unrelated effects. yes, there's a broad thematic tie between them of Spell Nullification, but there's no reason the two need to be sister spells. Dispel's mechanics work fine for Dispel; they have never worked well for Counterspell. Counter needs to be its own thing, if it gets to stay in the game at all. Frankly I'd still be fine with 'Counterspell' being an Abjuration wizard subclass feature rather than a more broadly available spell that every spellcaster takes so they can spike the DM's fun by having seven Counterspells available per turn for the climactic BBEG fight.
Something else to note about UA7 Counterspell. They've codified that the reaction requires the spell be cast with components.
This solidifies that casting while using Subtle Spell to not be counterspell-able. But this also does the same for spells cast from magic items since by default spells cast from magic items don't require components.
I was wondering why it targeted CON of all things, but the concentration point makes it make sense to me now.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, because personally, Counterspell really can trivialize boss encounters by countering their super-powerful mega spells that show off their grand might.
On the other hand, giving enemies Counterspell can also be a pain since it can just end a player's turn if they're a pure spellcaster.
Counterspell feels like one of those spells where you will always have issues with it, no matter what you do with it. But this is a nice attempt at trying to make it less problematic.
Constitution is fortitude.
ALLLLL kinds of fortitude, including mental fortitude.
Con's a weird stat though that outside of hit dice, people really don't use much so they don't really understand it. It's purely an endurance stat, and used for all tests of endurance/willpower. It has no skills attached, and weirdly it's barbs, fighters, and sorcerers that get the proficiency... which I guess actually makes sense that it's confused with physical endurance only (physical prowess is between dex and str.)
But a counterspell has nothing to do with being resistant or fortitude. Counterspell is undoing a spell before it takes effect.
Your explanation would make sense if it were to nullify or resist the effects of a spell that has been cast on you, or that is going to affect you in some way.
"SHUT UP AND LET ME THINK!!!"
Have you ever uttered those words? Or what about remembering something when someone interrupts you?
Build the spell around a Contest, which is similar to Grapple. Consider creating penalties for losing the contest - one side expends a spell slot, perhaps takes damage, gets a disadvantage, gets a condition like stunned, etc. One could create multiple versions of Counterspell with different side effects - maybe a decrease to spell DC for a few rounds, etc.
In the video it's explicitly stated if the spell was cast another way other than a spell slot it loses it.
I think I follow what you are saying, but I can't think of an example where someone casts a spell using a resource other than a spell slot that gets counterspelled and something is wasted, other than their action economy. I'm probably missing something obvious.
In the video it's explicitly stated if the spell was cast another way other than a spell slot it loses it.
I think I follow what you are saying, but I can't think of an example where someone casts a spell using a resource other than a spell slot that gets counterspelled and something is wasted, other than their action economy. I'm probably missing something obvious.
Monsters don't use spell slots to cast their spells, at least that's the new trend for them.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be obtuse. I know they redid quite a few of the monsters to have spell-like abilities rather than casting spells in the traditional sense. But I think maybe that isn't what you are talking about because those situations, like the war priest's holy fire action, wouldn't interact with the old or the new counterspell at all, so maybe there's something else you're referring to?
EDIT: I'm not trying to be obtuse. I know they redid quite a few of the monsters to have spell-like abilities rather than casting spells in the traditional sense. But I think maybe that isn't what you are talking about because those situations, like the war priest's holy fire action, wouldn't interact with the old or the new counterspell at all, so maybe there's something else you're referring to?
Sure!
No need for explanation. It was just taking a bit to find them in the basic rules and phb (the DDB freebies) so they're guaranteed visible.
Constitution is fortitude.
ALLLLL kinds of fortitude, including mental fortitude.
Con's a weird stat though that outside of hit dice, people really don't use much so they don't really understand it. It's purely an endurance stat, and used for all tests of endurance/willpower. It has no skills attached, and weirdly it's barbs, fighters, and sorcerers that get the proficiency... which I guess actually makes sense that it's confused with physical endurance only (physical prowess is between dex and str.)
It's kind of strange that it's a Con save. As if you're gut punching with your counterspell or something. Too much is on Con saves already, and it's the highest saveing throw on most monsters. It also means that the biggest, most muscular enemies are harder to counterspell. Hit the gym to make your magic uncounterable!
Why not an Int save?
I agree that upcasting the spell should add +1 to the save DC. I also think that warcaster should have grant advantage on the con save against counterspell.
Mage slayer should also add a +1 to counterspell DC.
I like the new counterspell. i wouldn't mind some tweaks like i can see an argument for a save using your casting stat. That feels like it would fit their design note better imo. I kind of think concentration checks(which I kind of think this should be) should do that in general but up the DC of the checks significantly to compensate for everyone being better at them now.
Because an INT save makes no sense. It assumes that a natural spellcaster like a sorcerer, a pimal spellcaster like a druid or a divine caster like a cleric are for some strange reason less capable of dealing with somebody being able to counterspell them.
It would be just as easy to say that wizards should be the most easily interrupted since they rely on their knowledge and thus have more that could be interrupted. Meanwhile other forms of spell casting are usually more innate to the caster and thus harder to interrupt.
A concentration save makes simply the most sense for maintaining a spell, it is what all spellcasters already use for maintaining spells that could be interrupted by other means, like taking damage while concentrating on a spell. This also makes sense since it means sorcerer, who's spell casting is innate, is the hardest to counterspell.
What could be argued is that wizards be the best at counterspell, which could be implemented as an arcana check to identify the spell they are attempting to counter spell, but having both a check and a save would be OTT. But since there should be a save, a concentration save makes more sense than an arcana check.
It would make just as much sense to say Divine casters are the hardest to interrupt and their source of magic is outside of them or from the gods so less is on them to keep a spell going, or wisdom saves in general as they are tied closer to mental will power which concentrating is thematically tied to more, or wizards as they are the most trained in how magic works. And if its about being a innate caster why con? Con has nothing to do with the sorcerers casting ability. They just happen to have con as their good save. With 5es one good one bad save good being wis/reflex/con odds are at least one caster was going to get con so they all didn't get wisdom.
My point being is none of it makes more sense than the other or more appropriately you can write flavor text to make any choice make sense. On a balance level did sorcerers need this edge are they the weakest casting class or something before looking at concentration. Maybe in the 2014 version as their spells known were rough but even then I'd say warlocks were a step below. Is it for monsters which generally have good con saves? Maybe though the casting monsters generally don't. Because almost every PC caster is going to have a decent con so they all but sorcerer are in the same boat? The choice seems more game design than thematic sense based. And I'm not opposed to it being con, just wish there was a better feel for what the stats meant and covered in the game as certain stats like Con feel really vague. My instinct would have been for it to be one of the mental stats wisdom most likely as its used to resist mental influences reads like willpower or the ability to hold concentration, though int maybe as its ability to see through illusions could be seen as the ability to focus through distraction, maybe charisma as its tied to a force of will that you exert out instead of resist like wisdom. Con I mean I guess you resist physical things with it so it kind of fits. But holding concentration on a spell just feels more mental concentration based not physical.
Can counterspell only be used on a concentration spell?
If it is not, which it is not, that explanation is not valid. I'm not saying that they didn't want to go there, but it doesn't make sense to me.
But a counterspell has nothing to do with being resistant or fortitude. Counterspell is undoing a spell before it takes effect.
Your explanation would make sense if it were to nullify or resist the effects of a spell that has been cast on you, or that is going to affect you in some way.
Counterspell doesn't have to be used exclusively on concentration spells, no, but I think I'll point to the fact that non-concentration spells can need concentration checks to maintain.
Longer Casting Times
So, being interrupted in the process of casting a spell normally requires a Constitution saving throw. Obviously, this rule was only for longer casting times, but it makes sense for its logic to be applied when interrupting a shorter spell.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Traditionally, wizards have always been the masters of counterspell. In 3.5, for example, the Mastery of Counterspelling feat was an archmage feat (a prestige class that represented the supreme wizard). And if I'm not mistaken, Improved Counterspell had the prerequisite of being a wizard. Although it must also be said that in that edition counterspell was not a spell itself, but rather you could try to do counterspell by casting the same spell as your opponent (and with a check). You could also use dispel magic under certain circumstances.
In any case, how is a counterspell supposed to work? The caster identifies the spell (which is why in past editions you had to have that spell prepared), and uses the spell's energy to undo it before it takes effect. That clearly sounds like something you'd do with Int or, at most, Wis (but it sounds more like Int to me, honestly).
Edit: Anyway I'm not against changing that to be a saving throw. What does not convince me is that it is cons. Perhaps a saving throw with your spell caster ability would make more sense, and explain it in a way that you try to overpower your spell so it doesn't fall apart.
But that isn’t how 5e counterspell worked or how they want 5eR counterspell to work.
5e counterspell was basically as a caster starts to form magic you apply an equal amount of magic to snuff it out, or a lesser amount make a roll and maybe you snuff it.
5eR they are saying caster starts to cast a spell and you apply magic on them to stop it. In my mind it’s like they start to chant magic words and you hit them with magic to make them cough, or they are making intricate symbols with their hand and you hit them with magic that makes them wiggle their fingers.
Honestly I always thought Mage Slayer should have a spell stopper portion to the feat. If someone tries to cast a spell within 5ft you get a reaction to make a melee attack against them.if the attack hits the caster makes a save, on a fail they don’t cast their spell. This part would be proficiency times a day.
It's not needed but it would streamline the game to have both spells work in the same way like they do now, otherwise it's just a headache for these spells to work in two completely different ways.
No it isn't. Counterspell and Dispel Magic are two unrelated spells with unrelated effects. yes, there's a broad thematic tie between them of Spell Nullification, but there's no reason the two need to be sister spells. Dispel's mechanics work fine for Dispel; they have never worked well for Counterspell. Counter needs to be its own thing, if it gets to stay in the game at all. Frankly I'd still be fine with 'Counterspell' being an Abjuration wizard subclass feature rather than a more broadly available spell that every spellcaster takes so they can spike the DM's fun by having seven Counterspells available per turn for the climactic BBEG fight.
Please do not contact or message me.
Something else to note about UA7 Counterspell. They've codified that the reaction requires the spell be cast with components.
This solidifies that casting while using Subtle Spell to not be counterspell-able. But this also does the same for spells cast from magic items since by default spells cast from magic items don't require components.
All in all I like the counterspell changes.
"SHUT UP AND LET ME THINK!!!"
Have you ever uttered those words? Or what about remembering something when someone interrupts you?
Concentration fits.
Counterspell is just a specific example of a Contest, accommodating the caster's abilities, and must include spell level.
Contest - Player's Handbook
Build the spell around a Contest, which is similar to Grapple. Consider creating penalties for losing the contest - one side expends a spell slot, perhaps takes damage, gets a disadvantage, gets a condition like stunned, etc. One could create multiple versions of Counterspell with different side effects - maybe a decrease to spell DC for a few rounds, etc.
I think I follow what you are saying, but I can't think of an example where someone casts a spell using a resource other than a spell slot that gets counterspelled and something is wasted, other than their action economy. I'm probably missing something obvious.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Monsters don't use spell slots to cast their spells, at least that's the new trend for them.
Vegan. Punk. Metal. Queer. Comics. Videogames.
Warlock enthusiast.
Are there examples of this that I can look at?
EDIT: I'm not trying to be obtuse. I know they redid quite a few of the monsters to have spell-like abilities rather than casting spells in the traditional sense. But I think maybe that isn't what you are talking about because those situations, like the war priest's holy fire action, wouldn't interact with the old or the new counterspell at all, so maybe there's something else you're referring to?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sure!
No need for explanation. It was just taking a bit to find them in the basic rules and phb (the DDB freebies) so they're guaranteed visible.
The archmage uses spell slots
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16789-archmage
The rakshasa uses at will
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16990-rakshasa