So now that I've had a chance to properly test out many of the new/revamped 5.5e spells both as a player and a DM, I can with full confidence say that the new Counterspell is garbage. Sorry if this has been posted before, but I wanted to make sure to try out the change in different environments and give the changes a fair shot. Now that I have I can say with confidence that this spell is just terrible.
The main problem with the spell is that if you succeed, then it's actually detrimental to you. The original caster does not expend a spell slot if you succeed at the spell, which costs you a spell slot. Regardless of the intent, the way it ultimately works is that the DM controlled casters WANT players to counterspell them. If they fail their concentration save, they have effectively sucked away from the party's resources WITHOUT A LOSS TO THEM. And if they succeed at the concentration save, they get to use their spell AND suck away a spell slot for free. Players are better off ignoring the spell, and now they pretty much always do, it's completely useless.
This is also true for DMs, to be clear. The argument that "it's less punishing to players when used against them" holds no value either. Most of the NPC spell casters that you find in modules or the like have their own spell list which almost never have counterspell. If it's a monster stat block they don't even have spell slots to begin with. Sometimes they have their own Counterspell - for example Shemeshka recently in the Planescape adventure - which functions more like the old Counterspell, so players are generally even more screwed.
Revert counterspell to the original version, or at the very least remove the line "If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended." Honestly I much prefer the old mechanic entirely, though that is a more subjective opinion. Counterspell to me is more interesting as an active attempt to disrupt the magic itself, having it be a skill check on the caster was more interesting then the current Con check.
There are in my opinion no bad choices in D&D as it is a Role-Playing game, however there are a few exceptions where something is so objectivly bad it litterally harms your Role-Play to choose them. (2014) True Strike, (2024) Ranger, and (2024) Counterspell.
As a DM My fix for 5.5 Ranger Hunter Mark has no concentration past 6 levels in ranger, and use the Legacy Counterspell.
The main problem with the spell is that if you succeed, then it's actually detrimental to you. The original caster does not expend a spell slot if you succeed at the spell, which costs you a spell slot.
Worth pointing out that this only applies if the enemy actually has spell slots, which is vanishingly rare in 2024-style monster stat blocks.
2024 stat blocks usually have "uses" rather than spell slots. Uses get eaten while spell slots get refunded. This was written so that enemies lose their usage when counterspelled, but a player that is counterspelled will feel less bad about losing their actions since they keep their spell slot
2024 stat blocks usually have "uses" rather than spell slots. Uses get eaten while spell slots get refunded. This was written so that enemies lose their usage when counterspelled, but a player that is counterspelled will feel less bad about losing their actions since they keep their spell slot
Exactly.
One unfortunate thing about the 2024 rules is that there were a number of design decisions like this that are pretty obvious if you read through everything and take the time to figure out how it's all meant to work together, but are easily missed on a casual glance, and in general they are not explicitly called out anywhere in the rules.
Not only that, but even when the enemy has spell slots and they're refunded: You've still cost them their action economy for the round. That's still impactful for a third-level spell slot. That's something less-discussed about it. Gaining the resource back matters far less if you're dead before using it again.
Not only that, but even when the enemy has spell slots and they're refunded: You've still cost them their action economy for the round. That's still impactful for a third-level spell slot. That's something less-discussed about it. Gaining the resource back matters far less if you're dead before using it again.
This.
Caster monsters don't run out their spell slots in almost any encounter, so whether they get it back or not is almost irrelevant. Either they're dead, or you're dead, long before it matters. Getting a slot back only really helps the players, and even then only when you're running an adventuring day long enough to run them out of spells.
The main drawback to counterspell now is the "one spell slot per turn" rule, where a caster can't counter a counterspell all on their lonesome. And, frankly, I think that's fine, or at least an acceptable casualty of a much-needed rule cleanup.
Taking resources from a mob doesn't do anything, they'll be dead within the next 24 seconds (probably 12) anyway. Taking a turn away from an enemy caster is a good use of a spell slot.
I would not say it’s useless. Even aside from the spell slot issue. The bad guy still lost its action. You’ve taken the turn of a creature that’s only going to have 3-5 of them before it dies. That’s removing 20-30 percent of its chances to act. You’ve also blocked whatever the spell was going to do — you’ve saved your allies hit points (so the cleric doesn’t have to heal and can spend their turn doing something else), or you’ve blocked someone getting held or dominated or whatever.
There’s a lot more to it than spell slot swapping.
I think the countered spell not costing a spell slot is good design. It takes some of the feelsbad sting out of being counterspelled, while affecting zero of it's actual in-encounter efficacy in most scenarios. Unless a caster is down to their last few slots, not losing a slot to a countered spell won't make a difference in that encounter. However, if being counterspelled can be an "enjoyable" experience for the player (or at least less punishing), DMs who care about their players having fun and enjoying themselves will be less worried about noping a player spell.
Revert counterspell to the original version, or at the very least remove the line "If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended." Honestly I much prefer the old mechanic entirely, though that is a more subjective opinion. Counterspell to me is more interesting as an active attempt to disrupt the magic itself, having it be a skill check on the caster was more interesting then the current Con check.
The main problem with the spell is that if you succeed, then it's actually detrimental to you. The original caster does not expend a spell slot if you succeed at the spell, which costs you a spell slot. Regardless of the intent, the way it ultimately works is that the DM controlled casters WANT players to counterspell them.
It still costs them an action; a reaction that cancels an action is very strong. Even if you give your casters spell slots (I do), it's a worthwhile effect.
The main problem with the spell is that if you succeed, then it's actually detrimental to you. The original caster does not expend a spell slot if you succeed at the spell, which costs you a spell slot. Regardless of the intent, the way it ultimately works is that the DM controlled casters WANT players to counterspell them.
It still costs them an action; a reaction that cancels an action is very strong. Even if you give your casters spell slots (I do), it's a worthwhile effect.
Not only did you cost them an action, you prevented your party from getting nuked by an upcast Fireball, giving your party a round of combat to kill or incapacitate the caster before the next spell comes your way. Definitely worth using Counterspell in that case.
There are plenty of people talking about the theory.
What I will say is that from a practical standpoint I see Counterspell being used pretty regularly at the tables I am playing at, both by the characters and by NPCs, and no one seems to think the current version is bad. There's zero complaint that the Red Wizard of Thay NPC didn't lose a spell slot. We are pumped that we didn't get nuked and then we all jump on him and hammer him in an attempt to prevent him from getting the opportunity to cast it again.
Of course we do hate it when we get Counterspelled ourselves and our wizard doesn't get to nuke the enemy group, but at least the spell slot that was going to be used didn't get burned up, and since we have to ration those way more than the NPCs we are really happy about that.
Forcing the creature being counterspelled to make a constitution save (not a concentration save like op said) is a good change. It allows players to make builds specifically designed to resist counterspell by getting constitution saving throw proficiency. Most importantly it feels significantly better to be counterspelled and about the same to counterspell someone else. What I mean is that the legacy version could easily feel bad because the DM tells you that you're counterspelled, you have no save, no roll, and your action is wasted. Even if the DM rolls the ability check the creature probably has an insane casting stat so it still feels as if the player has no agency. Not to mention the unnecessary tension and complications the upcasting auto success brings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So now that I've had a chance to properly test out many of the new/revamped 5.5e spells both as a player and a DM, I can with full confidence say that the new Counterspell is garbage. Sorry if this has been posted before, but I wanted to make sure to try out the change in different environments and give the changes a fair shot. Now that I have I can say with confidence that this spell is just terrible.
The main problem with the spell is that if you succeed, then it's actually detrimental to you. The original caster does not expend a spell slot if you succeed at the spell, which costs you a spell slot. Regardless of the intent, the way it ultimately works is that the DM controlled casters WANT players to counterspell them. If they fail their concentration save, they have effectively sucked away from the party's resources WITHOUT A LOSS TO THEM. And if they succeed at the concentration save, they get to use their spell AND suck away a spell slot for free. Players are better off ignoring the spell, and now they pretty much always do, it's completely useless.
This is also true for DMs, to be clear. The argument that "it's less punishing to players when used against them" holds no value either. Most of the NPC spell casters that you find in modules or the like have their own spell list which almost never have counterspell. If it's a monster stat block they don't even have spell slots to begin with. Sometimes they have their own Counterspell - for example Shemeshka recently in the Planescape adventure - which functions more like the old Counterspell, so players are generally even more screwed.
Revert counterspell to the original version, or at the very least remove the line "If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended." Honestly I much prefer the old mechanic entirely, though that is a more subjective opinion. Counterspell to me is more interesting as an active attempt to disrupt the magic itself, having it be a skill check on the caster was more interesting then the current Con check.
There are in my opinion no bad choices in D&D as it is a Role-Playing game, however there are a few exceptions where something is so objectivly bad it litterally harms your Role-Play to choose them. (2014) True Strike, (2024) Ranger, and (2024) Counterspell.
As a DM My fix for 5.5 Ranger Hunter Mark has no concentration past 6 levels in ranger, and use the Legacy Counterspell.
Worth pointing out that this only applies if the enemy actually has spell slots, which is vanishingly rare in 2024-style monster stat blocks.
pronouns: he/she/they
I remember a couple of threads if you want to read different opinions:
- Hot Take : I think Counterspell works fine
- Counterspell
2024 stat blocks usually have "uses" rather than spell slots. Uses get eaten while spell slots get refunded. This was written so that enemies lose their usage when counterspelled, but a player that is counterspelled will feel less bad about losing their actions since they keep their spell slot
Exactly.
One unfortunate thing about the 2024 rules is that there were a number of design decisions like this that are pretty obvious if you read through everything and take the time to figure out how it's all meant to work together, but are easily missed on a casual glance, and in general they are not explicitly called out anywhere in the rules.
pronouns: he/she/they
Not only that, but even when the enemy has spell slots and they're refunded: You've still cost them their action economy for the round. That's still impactful for a third-level spell slot. That's something less-discussed about it. Gaining the resource back matters far less if you're dead before using it again.
This.
Caster monsters don't run out their spell slots in almost any encounter, so whether they get it back or not is almost irrelevant. Either they're dead, or you're dead, long before it matters. Getting a slot back only really helps the players, and even then only when you're running an adventuring day long enough to run them out of spells.
The main drawback to counterspell now is the "one spell slot per turn" rule, where a caster can't counter a counterspell all on their lonesome. And, frankly, I think that's fine, or at least an acceptable casualty of a much-needed rule cleanup.
Taking resources from a mob doesn't do anything, they'll be dead within the next 24 seconds (probably 12) anyway. Taking a turn away from an enemy caster is a good use of a spell slot.
I would not say it’s useless. Even aside from the spell slot issue. The bad guy still lost its action. You’ve taken the turn of a creature that’s only going to have 3-5 of them before it dies. That’s removing 20-30 percent of its chances to act.
You’ve also blocked whatever the spell was going to do — you’ve saved your allies hit points (so the cleric doesn’t have to heal and can spend their turn doing something else), or you’ve blocked someone getting held or dominated or whatever.
There’s a lot more to it than spell slot swapping.
I think the countered spell not costing a spell slot is good design. It takes some of the feelsbad sting out of being counterspelled, while affecting zero of it's actual in-encounter efficacy in most scenarios. Unless a caster is down to their last few slots, not losing a slot to a countered spell won't make a difference in that encounter. However, if being counterspelled can be an "enjoyable" experience for the player (or at least less punishing), DMs who care about their players having fun and enjoying themselves will be less worried about noping a player spell.
That ship has sailed, the playtest is over.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
It still costs them an action; a reaction that cancels an action is very strong. Even if you give your casters spell slots (I do), it's a worthwhile effect.
Not only did you cost them an action, you prevented your party from getting nuked by an upcast Fireball, giving your party a round of combat to kill or incapacitate the caster before the next spell comes your way. Definitely worth using Counterspell in that case.
There are plenty of people talking about the theory.
What I will say is that from a practical standpoint I see Counterspell being used pretty regularly at the tables I am playing at, both by the characters and by NPCs, and no one seems to think the current version is bad. There's zero complaint that the Red Wizard of Thay NPC didn't lose a spell slot. We are pumped that we didn't get nuked and then we all jump on him and hammer him in an attempt to prevent him from getting the opportunity to cast it again.
Of course we do hate it when we get Counterspelled ourselves and our wizard doesn't get to nuke the enemy group, but at least the spell slot that was going to be used didn't get burned up, and since we have to ration those way more than the NPCs we are really happy about that.
Forcing the creature being counterspelled to make a constitution save (not a concentration save like op said) is a good change. It allows players to make builds specifically designed to resist counterspell by getting constitution saving throw proficiency. Most importantly it feels significantly better to be counterspelled and about the same to counterspell someone else. What I mean is that the legacy version could easily feel bad because the DM tells you that you're counterspelled, you have no save, no roll, and your action is wasted. Even if the DM rolls the ability check the creature probably has an insane casting stat so it still feels as if the player has no agency. Not to mention the unnecessary tension and complications the upcasting auto success brings.