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?
Concentration fits.
It would never cross my mind that my physical constitution would be what I'd use to focus past that kind of distraction. Pain from a injury I can somewhat see but that is about the only concentration effect that fits constitution
OK, thanks for the clarification. After rewatching the video and rereading the text of the feature, I think you are correct. But I also think that's going to be a pretty small subset of spellcasting that it applies to.
It would never cross my mind that my physical constitution would be what I'd use to focus past that kind of distraction. Pain from a injury I can somewhat see but that is about the only concentration effect that fits constitution
I feel like CON is a little bit wonky too, but I also think it works since concentration saves are CON saves. This resembles a kind of pre-emptive concentration save.
I have no real problem with CON being used as the save, but I could also imagine just making it a save in the spellcasting ability score (so variable amongst the different casters). Of course this would cause the problem that pretty much all spellcasters would be really good at saving against Counterspell.
I have no real problem with CON being used as the save, but I could also imagine just making it a save in the spellcasting ability score (so variable amongst the different casters). Of course this would cause the problem that pretty much all spellcasters would be really good at saving against Counterspell.
I was about to suggest almost exactly this, except I was thinking of the save being the Counterspell caster's spellcasting mod. So if a Wizard counterspells a Sorcerer's spell, that sorc has to make an INT save. I haven't really thought through the implications much, but it feels like it could have some interesting gameplay quirks...
I have no real problem with CON being used as the save, but I could also imagine just making it a save in the spellcasting ability score (so variable amongst the different casters). Of course this would cause the problem that pretty much all spellcasters would be really good at saving against Counterspell.
I was about to suggest almost exactly this, except I was thinking of the save being the Counterspell caster's spellcasting mod. So if a Wizard counterspells a Sorcerer's spell, that sorc has to make an INT save. I haven't really thought through the implications much, but it feels like it could have some interesting gameplay quirks...
I'll admit that is an intriguing idea, and would probably help in making it more difficult to save against a Counterspell, since both INT and CHA are pretty rare saves (I don't think WIS would be a possibility for casting Counterspell, would it?)
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.
Traditionally that is not true. Counterspell was not a spell, but a mechanic (you cast the same spell you wanted to avoid, and you did a check). However, you could also use dispel magic under certain conditions to counterspell a spell you didn't have prepared.
That said, which is anecdotal, magic dispel and counterspell really don't have to share mechanics. Making a saving throw to avoid counterspell seems fine to me. What seems strange to me is that it is cons, and not Int, Wis, or your spell casting ability.
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.
Traditionally that is not true. Counterspell was not a spell, but a mechanic (you cast the same spell you wanted to avoid, and you did a check). However, you could also use dispel magic under certain conditions to counterspell a spell you didn't have prepared.
That said, which is anecdotal, magic dispel and counterspell really don't have to share mechanics. Making a saving throw to avoid counterspell seems fine to me. What seems strange to me is that it is cons, and not Int, Wis, or your spell casting ability.
D&D isn't a rigorously designed game, so we can make up a justification for why anything using any saving throw. Instead let's consider game balance:
Int, Wis, or Cha (or the Counterspeller's spellcasting ability) would be terrible game design since it would mean any spellcaster that wants to improve their ability to avoid being counterspelled that doesn't use that ability score for their spellcasting is at a massive disadvantage compared to a spellcaster where that is their spellcasting ability. And the efficacy of counterspell will fluctuate wildly depending on what type of casters are present.
If they used the target's spellcasting ability then Counterspell will always have only a 40% chance to succeed if the target is the same level/CR as you, regardless of the tier of play. Which means more often than not Counterspell will do nothing, and players can do nothing to build their character to be more resistant to counterspell.
Whereas if they use Constitution, players have choices that will make their character more resistant to counterspell that aren't too punishing since they also give them more HP and better concentration. And most of the time Counterspell will work as most casters don't have proficiency in the save when fighting similarly levelled enemies. But when fighting an boss enemy with Legendary Resistances or Magic Resistance Counterspell won't work which makes total sense.
The only caster that innately is more resistant to counterspell (as a Constitution save) than the others would be Sorcerer and the Sorcerer already gets Subtle spell which already gives them choices to simply be immune to counterspell already.
The way I see it there are two considerations for spell mechanics, flavor and balance.
In my opinion WoC knocked the favor out of the park. It's a contest between mages. My spell power verses your yours.
But in terms of balance, this is an F. A constitution save is the worst kind, and if it works, you spent a 3rd level spell slot just to make the enemy mage waste a main or bonus action - IF it works. And it will work maybe half the time at best. They're already nerfing the spell by making so many monster's magic-like effects "not" spells.
If it goes official as written in 7, no thank you. It'll just go beside True Strike and a handful of other spells I would not waste my time on.
A constitution save is the worst kind, and if it works, you spent a 3rd level spell slot just to make the enemy mage waste a main or bonus action - IF it works.
Well, I think it's important to note that the kind of monsters that cast spells are often the same kind of monsters with lower Con saves. And I, for one, would gladly use a 3rd level slot to delay a powerful spell for a round and waste a higher-damage lower-health mage's whole action.
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)
But in terms of balance, this is an F. A constitution save is the worst kind, and if it works, you spent a 3rd level spell slot just to make the enemy mage waste a main or bonus action - IF it works.
Seriously now.... do you guys even play D&D? An enemy mage never runs out of spellslots, they die long before running out of spellslots is even the slightest inconvenience. Giving the spellslot back will have little impact on enemy mages but a much bigger impact on players who get counterspelled by the enemy. Cause the enemies always always has more spells to burn than the players do.
But in terms of balance, this is an F. A constitution save is the worst kind, and if it works, you spent a 3rd level spell slot just to make the enemy mage waste a main or bonus action - IF it works.
Seriously now.... do you guys even play D&D? An enemy mage never runs out of spellslots, they die long before running out of spellslots is even the slightest inconvenience. Giving the spellslot back will have little impact on enemy mages but a much bigger impact on players who get counterspelled by the enemy. Cause the enemies always always has more spells to burn than the players do.
Except Sean wasn't saying anything about the enemy's spell slots. Heck, enemy NPCs these days don't even have spell slots at all.
They were saying that because CON saves are the most frequent saves monsters are decent at, Counterspell targeting CON saves hurts it. And even if it works, you had to burn one of your 3rd-level+ slots to do it.
Some do, but the point is for most monsters/foes it will still be ok. The spellslot save goes both ways, so if an archmage has counterspell, and they use it against you, it does much the same, and you get your slot saved.
The spell as it was was controversial. The revamp makes it far less so. People just don't like when their most overpowered broken stuff gets nerfed.
If we want it to be a contest between mages, then wouldn't having the spell literally have you make a spellcasting ability check contested against the caster's spellcasting ability check be more appropriate? And presumably for more powerful mage NPCs, it will be easier for them to win the contest against a Level 5 PC.
The problem with contested ability checks is that players have a bunch of ways to stack the odds; enhance ability can give advantage, combine that with expertise from a class or feat (assuming OneD&D will still have an expertise feat, I forget if they've already shown one or not), etc. While an enemy could in theory have the same or similar options, unless they too have allies they will have less scope for it, and most stock monsters can't do this.
One of the advantages of the UA proposed method is that a saving throw means that the legendary creature (which should be able to function as a solo boss) will be able to use legendary resistance to avoid being counterspelled.
I'd still prefer to have some element of the counterspeller involved, but I guess that comes from their save DC now; I could maybe see bringing back comparison of spell levels though, e.g- adjust the spell DC up or down if you counterspell at a higher or lower level than the target cast the original spell. Not as powerful as immediately "nope"-ing a spell but could help tip the odds, and reflects the greater strength of a spell.
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.
A constitution save is the worst kind, and if it works, you spent a 3rd level spell slot just to make the enemy mage waste a main or bonus action - IF it works.
Well, I think it's important to note that the kind of monsters that cast spells are often the same kind of monsters with lower Con saves. And I, for one, would gladly use a 3rd level slot to delay a powerful spell for a round and waste a higher-damage lower-health mage's whole action.
The first part is my concern for why this might be more powerful than the old version once you are deep tier 2+. A archmage has a +1 to their con save. They will fail this left and right. Before if they cast a higher level spell you had a decent chance to fail countering it. A 9th level wizard casts counterspell now they have +5 to their roll and need to roll an 11 to counter a 6th level spell. UA7 the archmage needs to roll a 16 to not get countered whether its a level 1 or level 9 spell. If it were spell casting attribute save the archmage would need to roll an 8 which is closer in power to the 2014 model. Liches will be fine though.
Unless monster design takes this into account and most casting enemies pick up resilient con this may be way too good like it is.
2014 counterspell was too good, this might actually be better.
. 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.
Divine casters differ cleric and paladin have decidedly different sources. A paladin is generally using their oath which is internal, a cleric is usually using their power to call on the source of their faith, which is external. Paladin gets Aura of Protection which makes it harder to counterspell them than clerics on a save, which still works more online with sorcerers being innate.
All casters concentrate on spells while casting but some require more concentration than others, the ability to concentrate has been under constitution for all of 5e.
A constitution save is the worst kind, and if it works, you spent a 3rd level spell slot just to make the enemy mage waste a main or bonus action - IF it works.
Well, I think it's important to note that the kind of monsters that cast spells are often the same kind of monsters with lower Con saves. And I, for one, would gladly use a 3rd level slot to delay a powerful spell for a round and waste a higher-damage lower-health mage's whole action.
The first part is my concern for why this might be more powerful than the old version once you are deep tier 2+. A archmage has a +1 to their con save. They will fail this left and right. Before if they cast a higher level spell you had a decent chance to fail countering it. A 9th level wizard casts counterspell now they have +5 to their roll and need to roll an 11 to counter a 6th level spell. UA7 the archmage needs to roll a 16 to not get countered whether its a level 1 or level 9 spell. If it were spell casting attribute save the archmage would need to roll an 8 which is closer in power to the 2014 model. Liches will be fine though.
Unless monster design takes this into account and most casting enemies pick up resilient con this may be way too good like it is.
2014 counterspell was too good, this might actually be better.
This is a really important point, I hadn't realized many saving throw modifiers were so so low on monster spellcasters. You've convinced me that saving throw with spellcasting ability is the better choice.
A constitution save is the worst kind, and if it works, you spent a 3rd level spell slot just to make the enemy mage waste a main or bonus action - IF it works.
Well, I think it's important to note that the kind of monsters that cast spells are often the same kind of monsters with lower Con saves. And I, for one, would gladly use a 3rd level slot to delay a powerful spell for a round and waste a higher-damage lower-health mage's whole action.
The first part is my concern for why this might be more powerful than the old version once you are deep tier 2+. A archmage has a +1 to their con save. They will fail this left and right. Before if they cast a higher level spell you had a decent chance to fail countering it. A 9th level wizard casts counterspell now they have +5 to their roll and need to roll an 11 to counter a 6th level spell. UA7 the archmage needs to roll a 16 to not get countered whether its a level 1 or level 9 spell. If it were spell casting attribute save the archmage would need to roll an 8 which is closer in power to the 2014 model. Liches will be fine though.
Unless monster design takes this into account and most casting enemies pick up resilient con this may be way too good like it is.
2014 counterspell was too good, this might actually be better.
This is a really important point, I hadn't realized many saving throw modifiers were so so low on monster spellcasters. You've convinced me that saving throw with spellcasting ability is the better choice.
Part of the problem is that the monster/player disparity is incredibly low to begin with.
Should be restricted to level 3 spells (no uncast) and ability power battle.
Counterspell is really not fun mechanic. Play BG3 with a caster and you will see it ...
The key difference being if you cast Counterspell the slot is always expended, but the spell it stops doesn't expend a spell slot, so they can try again.
Save with spellcasting ability modifier, or not a save at all -- make it a spellcasting ability check using their spell attack modifier (which, unlike the save, is always proficient).
The core problem is that "lose an action" as a reaction breaks action economy, so it needs to have quite low reliability, on the order of 30%.
It would never cross my mind that my physical constitution would be what I'd use to focus past that kind of distraction. Pain from a injury I can somewhat see but that is about the only concentration effect that fits constitution
OK, thanks for the clarification. After rewatching the video and rereading the text of the feature, I think you are correct. But I also think that's going to be a pretty small subset of spellcasting that it applies to.
I feel like CON is a little bit wonky too, but I also think it works since concentration saves are CON saves. This resembles a kind of pre-emptive concentration save.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I have no real problem with CON being used as the save, but I could also imagine just making it a save in the spellcasting ability score (so variable amongst the different casters). Of course this would cause the problem that pretty much all spellcasters would be really good at saving against Counterspell.
I was about to suggest almost exactly this, except I was thinking of the save being the Counterspell caster's spellcasting mod. So if a Wizard counterspells a Sorcerer's spell, that sorc has to make an INT save. I haven't really thought through the implications much, but it feels like it could have some interesting gameplay quirks...
I'll admit that is an intriguing idea, and would probably help in making it more difficult to save against a Counterspell, since both INT and CHA are pretty rare saves (I don't think WIS would be a possibility for casting Counterspell, would it?)
Traditionally that is not true. Counterspell was not a spell, but a mechanic (you cast the same spell you wanted to avoid, and you did a check). However, you could also use dispel magic under certain conditions to counterspell a spell you didn't have prepared.
That said, which is anecdotal, magic dispel and counterspell really don't have to share mechanics. Making a saving throw to avoid counterspell seems fine to me. What seems strange to me is that it is cons, and not Int, Wis, or your spell casting ability.
D&D isn't a rigorously designed game, so we can make up a justification for why anything using any saving throw. Instead let's consider game balance:
Int, Wis, or Cha (or the Counterspeller's spellcasting ability) would be terrible game design since it would mean any spellcaster that wants to improve their ability to avoid being counterspelled that doesn't use that ability score for their spellcasting is at a massive disadvantage compared to a spellcaster where that is their spellcasting ability. And the efficacy of counterspell will fluctuate wildly depending on what type of casters are present.
If they used the target's spellcasting ability then Counterspell will always have only a 40% chance to succeed if the target is the same level/CR as you, regardless of the tier of play. Which means more often than not Counterspell will do nothing, and players can do nothing to build their character to be more resistant to counterspell.
Whereas if they use Constitution, players have choices that will make their character more resistant to counterspell that aren't too punishing since they also give them more HP and better concentration. And most of the time Counterspell will work as most casters don't have proficiency in the save when fighting similarly levelled enemies. But when fighting an boss enemy with Legendary Resistances or Magic Resistance Counterspell won't work which makes total sense.
The only caster that innately is more resistant to counterspell (as a Constitution save) than the others would be Sorcerer and the Sorcerer already gets Subtle spell which already gives them choices to simply be immune to counterspell already.
The way I see it there are two considerations for spell mechanics, flavor and balance.
In my opinion WoC knocked the favor out of the park. It's a contest between mages. My spell power verses your yours.
But in terms of balance, this is an F. A constitution save is the worst kind, and if it works, you spent a 3rd level spell slot just to make the enemy mage waste a main or bonus action - IF it works. And it will work maybe half the time at best. They're already nerfing the spell by making so many monster's magic-like effects "not" spells.
If it goes official as written in 7, no thank you. It'll just go beside True Strike and a handful of other spells I would not waste my time on.
Well, I think it's important to note that the kind of monsters that cast spells are often the same kind of monsters with lower Con saves. And I, for one, would gladly use a 3rd level slot to delay a powerful spell for a round and waste a higher-damage lower-health mage's whole action.
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)
Seriously now.... do you guys even play D&D? An enemy mage never runs out of spellslots, they die long before running out of spellslots is even the slightest inconvenience. Giving the spellslot back will have little impact on enemy mages but a much bigger impact on players who get counterspelled by the enemy. Cause the enemies always always has more spells to burn than the players do.
Some do, but the point is for most monsters/foes it will still be ok. The spellslot save goes both ways, so if an archmage has counterspell, and they use it against you, it does much the same, and you get your slot saved.
The spell as it was was controversial. The revamp makes it far less so. People just don't like when their most overpowered broken stuff gets nerfed.
The problem with contested ability checks is that players have a bunch of ways to stack the odds; enhance ability can give advantage, combine that with expertise from a class or feat (assuming OneD&D will still have an expertise feat, I forget if they've already shown one or not), etc. While an enemy could in theory have the same or similar options, unless they too have allies they will have less scope for it, and most stock monsters can't do this.
One of the advantages of the UA proposed method is that a saving throw means that the legendary creature (which should be able to function as a solo boss) will be able to use legendary resistance to avoid being counterspelled.
I'd still prefer to have some element of the counterspeller involved, but I guess that comes from their save DC now; I could maybe see bringing back comparison of spell levels though, e.g- adjust the spell DC up or down if you counterspell at a higher or lower level than the target cast the original spell. Not as powerful as immediately "nope"-ing a spell but could help tip the odds, and reflects the greater strength of a spell.
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 first part is my concern for why this might be more powerful than the old version once you are deep tier 2+. A archmage has a +1 to their con save. They will fail this left and right. Before if they cast a higher level spell you had a decent chance to fail countering it. A 9th level wizard casts counterspell now they have +5 to their roll and need to roll an 11 to counter a 6th level spell. UA7 the archmage needs to roll a 16 to not get countered whether its a level 1 or level 9 spell. If it were spell casting attribute save the archmage would need to roll an 8 which is closer in power to the 2014 model. Liches will be fine though.
Unless monster design takes this into account and most casting enemies pick up resilient con this may be way too good like it is.
2014 counterspell was too good, this might actually be better.
Divine casters differ cleric and paladin have decidedly different sources. A paladin is generally using their oath which is internal, a cleric is usually using their power to call on the source of their faith, which is external. Paladin gets Aura of Protection which makes it harder to counterspell them than clerics on a save, which still works more online with sorcerers being innate.
All casters concentrate on spells while casting but some require more concentration than others, the ability to concentrate has been under constitution for all of 5e.
This is a really important point, I hadn't realized many saving throw modifiers were so so low on monster spellcasters. You've convinced me that saving throw with spellcasting ability is the better choice.
Part of the problem is that the monster/player disparity is incredibly low to begin with.
Level 3 Spell > Level 9 Spell
Not good ! Not good.
Should be restricted to level 3 spells (no uncast) and ability power battle.
Counterspell is really not fun mechanic. Play BG3 with a caster and you will see it ...
The key difference being if you cast Counterspell the slot is always expended, but the spell it stops doesn't expend a spell slot, so they can try again.
It's a delaying tactic.
Save with spellcasting ability modifier, or not a save at all -- make it a spellcasting ability check using their spell attack modifier (which, unlike the save, is always proficient).
The core problem is that "lose an action" as a reaction breaks action economy, so it needs to have quite low reliability, on the order of 30%.
Your wording makes it read to me like you believe this to be an unintended consequence.
"Not all those who wander are lost"