COUNTERSPELL Level 3 Abjuration (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) Casting Time: Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components Range: 60 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The creature must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell dissipates with no effect, and the action, Bonus Action, or Reaction used to cast it is wasted. If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended.
Note: The UA7 version doesn't benefit from upcasting (though I like this, more on that later).
What It Does Wrong The design notes state Counterspell's current implementation "failed to account for the capabilities of the target" which is why they implemented a Constitution Save from the target as opposed to a skill check from the caster. I find this both thematically and mechanically bankrupt.
Thematically, short of fighting Mystra herself, we're all casting from the same weave so the "abilities of the target" are largely irrelevant, and even if they weren't Constitution isn't even on my Top 5 ways of representing that.
Mechanically, this isn't solving any real existing problem while creating so many more, including but not limited to:
Effectively makes any caster PC multi-attribute dependent. They already need their primary ability score, DEX for Armor, and CON for health and concentration. With this change, casters who want to be protected from counterspells basically have to choose to focus on DEX or CON, or get heavy armor proficiency from a fighter dip and deal with the speed reduction.
The ability check debuff from Hex no longer has a use-case of debuffing an enemy caster's spellcasting ability to make them worse at Counterspell and Dispel Magic.
Legendary Resistance will work against Counterspell, which on one-hand is another way of burning through legendary resists ... if CON wasn't one of the most common saves among enemies; meaning when you really want this to work, it's more likely to fail.
On top of Legendary Resistance, Magic Resistance now applies to the save making it even less likely to fail the check.
Opposing spell save DCs scale so much higher than a PC's to the point a PC spellcaster may eventually just be incapable of making the save and effectively be shut out of a fight until the enemy runs out of gas.
Losing your spell slot while the enemy keeps theirs is just ... the most imbalanced thing. I have no words. "Remand" (a similar spell in Magic: the Gathering) has no place in current D&D.
I understand that thematically it might feel right to make certain enemies all-but-immune to counterspell, but this creates more problems for the player than it solves for the DM. OneD&D has already been soft-nerfing Counterspell with more innate casting and spell-like abilities, but I thought this was clever and often the spells that were leftover were the ones you'd want to counter anyway (again, really healthy design). But with this change you either have innate casters who you can't counterspell because they're casting without components, spell-like abilities which you can't counter because they're not spells, and now when you finally face off against a legendary enemy that is casting honest spells ... you still won't get a Counterspell to stick. Then even if you do get it to stick, your spell slot is gone, and the enemy still has theirs.
What It Does Right Removing upcast scaling was a really good choice. Counterspell has always felt like a necessary evil. You don't really feel how good it is because you dont' feel what it stops, and because of the way it scales with upcasting it takes the place of higher level spells you wish you could be casting with those slots instead. By removing upcast scaling, you'll always be incentivized to cast it at the lowest possible level and save your high level slots for the high level spells you actually want to cast. This is wonderful.
As an alternative, I would propose that instead of a Constitution Saving throw on the part of the target, that it remain an ability check on the part of the caster. My suggestion is that Counterspell automatically counters spells 3rd level or lower, but if the spell is 4th level or higher:
The current formula is fine as-is (spellcasting ability check DC 10 + spell level).
Arcana Check DC10+Spell Level
Arcana[Intelligence] Check against target's Spell Save DC.
Arcana[Spellcasting Ability] Check against target's Spell Save DC.
I'm personally a fan of the last two as I think it encompasses what the design team was after (target's ability mattering) while not creating a bunch of weird hoops for players and freeing up higher level spell slots that no longer need to be sand-bagged for Counterspell. Generally I'm all for making more skills matter, making expertise in skills matter, and making skills important in combat scenarios.
I would apply these same rules to DIspel Magic.
The Abjuration Wizard's level 10 feature would need to be changed to something like ... granting them proficiency in Arcana, if they have proficiency then expertise, and if they have expertise then Advantage on all Arcana checks. This way they still essentially remain the premier defensive casters.
I have never liked the current CS and think this is a marked improvement. It makes no sense that counterspelling an archlich and counterspelling a goblin shaman essentially have the same success rate.
Spellcasters are already bound to CON due to concentration, so there's no change there. And who cares if a monster loses its slot or not? Enemies have an average life expectancy of 3-4 rounds tops. They should not need to conform to the same resource management that PCs do, because they are designed for different purposes.
Counterspell always felt like a necessary evil because it was too good not to take. It succeeds so often that it's a no-brainer, and the result is that someone who wanted to do a cool thing doesn't get to do their cool thing anymore. It needed a nerf.
Make it so Countspell spell slot does NOT get used if target makes the save.
Remove counterspell and just have it a Skill challenge Arcana vs Arcana. One caster's knowledge of spell craft knowing how to disrupt a spell and the target using arcana to work around the attempt of the Counter the spell. (Add this to the MAGIC action)
So I think the design is not about the monster you are fighting losing the spell slot. It is in effect granting you free attempts to prevent the monster from casting the spell and becomes a must have spam spell
Most enemies don’t use spellslots to cast. This spell is designed in favor of the player. If you the player get counterspelled you only lose the action not the spell. If you counterspell the lich and some how succeed they lose the action and there spell per day. They don’t have a spell slot unless the DM made them a player character and not a monster.
So I think the design is not about the monster you are fighting losing the spell slot. It is in effect granting you free attempts to prevent the monster from casting the spell and becomes a must have spam spell
In the video it's explicitly stated if the spell was cast another way other than a spell slot it loses it.
It also says someone shouldn't lose a 9th level slot to counterspell.
Now, I'm a bit skeptical still, but with a few clarifications I'm pretty certain that means slots for monster started as monsters and NPCs with per day spells are going to lose them and npc's started as PC's will keep them.
What It Does Wrong The design notes state Counterspell's current implementation "failed to account for the capabilities of the target" which is why they implemented a Constitution Save from the target as opposed to a skill check from the caster. I find this both thematically and mechanically bankrupt.
Why? Some creatures are naturally going to be better at punching spells through interference than others. You're presumably casting your best Counterspell every time you cast; the current design aligns with the usual way the game works and forces the target to try and resist the effect rather than checking to see if you were too dumb to remember how to Counterspell that day.
Thematically, short of fighting Mystra herself, we're all casting from the same weave so the "abilities of the target" are largely irrelevant, and even if they weren't Constitution isn't even on my Top 5 ways of representing that.
I do not remotely agree. Counterspelling the local hedge wizard is one thing; counterspelling Vecna is entirely another. The abilities of the target should matter tremendously. Whether Constitution is the right thing or not is another matter, but no - Counterspell absolutely needs to respect the abilities of the target.
Mechanically, this isn't solving any real existing problem while creating so many more, including but not limited to:
Effectively makes any caster PC multi-attribute dependent. They already need their primary ability score, DEX for Armor, and CON for health and concentration. With this change, casters who want to be protected from counterspells basically have to choose to focus on DEX or CON, or get heavy armor proficiency from a fighter dip and deal with the speed reduction.
Working as intended. The game is better when dumping stats hurts, and when a character wants every stat but can't have it. This is one of D&D's biggest weaknesses, the fact that many or even most classes simply couldn't care less about half (or more!) of the game's supposed 'core' stats. Anything that makes players think harder about how to balance their ability scores is beneficial. Besides, it's not like the average player isn't fishing for the thiccest Con score they can get anyways; I'm the only player in my entire play group who routinely plays Con scores below 14.
The ability check debuff from Hex no longer has a use-case of debuffing an enemy caster's spellcasting ability to make them worse at Counterspell and Dispel Magic.
And? The ability check debuff from Hex is basically a ribbon. I've used it as a sort of juju-jinx, Hexing someone with disadvantage on Dex checks as a sort of "curse of clumsiness" to get a waitress to drop a drink order (in fairness, she called me names first), but that's entirely DM fiat. It's never been the main purpose of Hex, or even a good secondary purpose.
Legendary Resistance will work against Counterspell, which on one-hand is another way of burning through legendary resists ... if CON wasn't one of the most common saves among enemies; meaning when you really want this to work, it's more likely to fail.
Your argument here is against Legendary Resistance, not Counterspell. LR is a problem, but it's one without a good solution without completely reworking every spell or spell-like effect in D&D from the ground up. So long as hard-disable "Save or Suck" abilities exist in D&D, Legendary Resistance is a necessity, and Counterspell wearing it down is simply another way to burn through them faster.
On top of Legendary Resistance, Magic Resistance now applies to the save making it even less likely to fail the check.
Magic Resistance makes you resistant to an enemy's magic? Huh. Sounds like it's working as intended to me.
Opposing spell save DCs scale so much higher than a PC's to the point a PC spellcaster may eventually just be incapable of making the save and effectively be shut out of a fight until the enemy runs out of gas.
It's almost like Counterspell is super ******* broken in its 2014 state and is DM-banned from many tables kinna specifically because it ignores the target's abilities and allows a player to just completely turn off any spellcasting enemy and render them a trivial nonchallenge no matter how powerful or well-prepared...
Losing your spell slot while the enemy keeps theirs is just ... the most imbalanced thing. I have no words. "Remand" (a similar spell in Magic: the Gathering) has no place in current D&D.
Nah. See, this also means that when the DM Counterspells you - which they're allowed to do no matter how often players cry foul about it - you don't lose your resource either. Besides, remember - almost nothing left in the game has "spell slots" anymore, they have "Casts/day". They still have to expend one of those, and don't get it back if Counterspell connects. Or so J. Craw says, I'd personally rule that nah, the target keeps whatever resource it used.
Because Counterspell isn't "Drain Magic". It counters a spellcast, almost always wasting the target's entire turn. It should not also siphon away the enemy's magical power and make them less able to cast. You're trading your Energy resource to deny an enemy their Time resource - you exchange a Reaction (dramatically less valuable than an Action) and some magic energy in the form of a spell slot to nullify a target's Action. Still incredibly valuable, simply not so valuable it's a non-negotiable must-have and deeply unfair and unfun for the DM.
As an alternative, I would propose that instead of a Constitution Saving throw on the part of the target, that it remain an ability check on the part of the caster. My suggestion is that Counterspell automatically counters spells 3rd level or lower, but if the spell is 4th level or higher:
No. I'm sick of Counterspell Math. The spell either works or it doesn't, no more bullshit spell level comparison ****ery. Now, I do wish it was specifically a Concentration check rather than a Constitution save, and they could make the Concentration check against your spell save DC. That both rewards the player's power by involving their spell save, and accounts for the target's abilities. Spellcasters who specifically train in improving their Concentration (War Caster and such) are markedly more resistant to Counterspell, as they should be. Frankly that's what a few of my homebrew attempts to fix Counterspell have tried to do - effectively allow you to break the enemy's Concentration on a spell they're about to cast, rather than one they've already cast.
It would be nice to have their con save be against your spell DC.
Is that not exactly how the spell works?
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)
From a flavor perspective, are you countering the spell or the caster? 2014 Counterspell seems to be countering the spell where the chance of success/failure is determined by the level of the spell. UA7 Counterspell seems to be countering the caster, where the success/failure is determined by the caster. Different people can have different views on which is the appropriate theme.
And kudos for mentioning Magic the Gathering "Remand". I was thinking of that reference too, and remembering how in counterspell wars, Remanding your own spell was sometimes the best play. Looking at UA7 Counterspell, Countering your own spells could pay off in niche situations where (a) the monster has a high CON save, (b) your team/allies have more total spell slots, and (c) you have a terrible CON save.
I have no problem with it being a saving throw, but it should be a mental saving throw. And the one that best fits is int, which is also high in wizards and wizards are supposed to be the best at counterspell (due to their arcane knowledge). I don't understand what they have tried to do with a constitution saving throw. It seems like a very strange decision to me.
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.
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)
I'm actually not opposed to the changes, though I do wonder if Constitution is the right saving throw to use; why not the target's spellcasting ability? Though it being Constitution only would give sorcerer's an interesting extra boost.
I would also like to see upscaling return, but in a form where the difference in spell levels applies to the save as a bonus or penalty. Wording might be something like "If counterspell is cast at a different level than triggering spell, apply the difference to the spell save DC (as bonus if counterspell is of a higher level, or a penalty if it is lower)".
This way the level of spell still has an impact, and you can still throw a higher level counterspell at something you really want to stop, but it comes at either high cost, or high risk; e.g- a 9th-level counterspell vs. a 3rd-level spell is a nice big +6 bonus, but that still may not guarantee success.
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.
Personally I don't dislike the change, it makes sense that it's a constitution save, because of concentration (More utility for the "War caster" feat, maybe increase DC if you have ARCANE proficiency), possibly better than 5e and I prefer it, but even so I think it could be better, for example I wouldn't have removed the scaling, I would put that each higher level of the used spell slot increases the DC to overcome by +1, and maybe from the level 5 also consumes the spell slot of the neutralized spell, as if you expended more effort to cut off the enemy's concentration to also consume the spell slot that was exposed when attempting to perform magic.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
It would be nice to have their con save be against your spell DC.
Is that not exactly how the spell works?
At this point, I forget lol. I also don't play wizards so....
I mean, it says how the spell works right at the top of the thread.
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)
What It Does Wrong The design notes state Counterspell's current implementation "failed to account for the capabilities of the target" which is why they implemented a Constitution Save from the target as opposed to a skill check from the caster. I find this both thematically and mechanically bankrupt.
Why? Some creatures are naturally going to be better at punching spells through interference than others. You're presumably casting your best Counterspell every time you cast; the current design aligns with the usual way the game works and forces the target to try and resist the effect rather than checking to see if you were too dumb to remember how to Counterspell that day.
Thematically, short of fighting Mystra herself, we're all casting from the same weave so the "abilities of the target" are largely irrelevant, and even if they weren't Constitution isn't even on my Top 5 ways of representing that.
I do not remotely agree. Counterspelling the local hedge wizard is one thing; counterspelling Vecna is entirely another. The abilities of the target should matter tremendously. Whether Constitution is the right thing or not is another matter, but no - Counterspell absolutely needs to respect the abilities of the target.
Mechanically, this isn't solving any real existing problem while creating so many more, including but not limited to:
Effectively makes any caster PC multi-attribute dependent. They already need their primary ability score, DEX for Armor, and CON for health and concentration. With this change, casters who want to be protected from counterspells basically have to choose to focus on DEX or CON, or get heavy armor proficiency from a fighter dip and deal with the speed reduction.
Working as intended. The game is better when dumping stats hurts, and when a character wants every stat but can't have it. This is one of D&D's biggest weaknesses, the fact that many or even most classes simply couldn't care less about half (or more!) of the game's supposed 'core' stats. Anything that makes players think harder about how to balance their ability scores is beneficial. Besides, it's not like the average player isn't fishing for the thiccest Con score they can get anyways; I'm the only player in my entire play group who routinely plays Con scores below 14.
The ability check debuff from Hex no longer has a use-case of debuffing an enemy caster's spellcasting ability to make them worse at Counterspell and Dispel Magic.
And? The ability check debuff from Hex is basically a ribbon. I've used it as a sort of juju-jinx, Hexing someone with disadvantage on Dex checks as a sort of "curse of clumsiness" to get a waitress to drop a drink order (in fairness, she called me names first), but that's entirely DM fiat. It's never been the main purpose of Hex, or even a good secondary purpose.
Legendary Resistance will work against Counterspell, which on one-hand is another way of burning through legendary resists ... if CON wasn't one of the most common saves among enemies; meaning when you really want this to work, it's more likely to fail.
Your argument here is against Legendary Resistance, not Counterspell. LR is a problem, but it's one without a good solution without completely reworking every spell or spell-like effect in D&D from the ground up. So long as hard-disable "Save or Suck" abilities exist in D&D, Legendary Resistance is a necessity, and Counterspell wearing it down is simply another way to burn through them faster.
On top of Legendary Resistance, Magic Resistance now applies to the save making it even less likely to fail the check.
Magic Resistance makes you resistant to an enemy's magic? Huh. Sounds like it's working as intended to me.
Opposing spell save DCs scale so much higher than a PC's to the point a PC spellcaster may eventually just be incapable of making the save and effectively be shut out of a fight until the enemy runs out of gas.
It's almost like Counterspell is super ******* broken in its 2014 state and is DM-banned from many tables kinna specifically because it ignores the target's abilities and allows a player to just completely turn off any spellcasting enemy and render them a trivial nonchallenge no matter how powerful or well-prepared...
Losing your spell slot while the enemy keeps theirs is just ... the most imbalanced thing. I have no words. "Remand" (a similar spell in Magic: the Gathering) has no place in current D&D.
Nah. See, this also means that when the DM Counterspells you - which they're allowed to do no matter how often players cry foul about it - you don't lose your resource either. Besides, remember - almost nothing left in the game has "spell slots" anymore, they have "Casts/day". They still have to expend one of those, and don't get it back if Counterspell connects. Or so J. Craw says, I'd personally rule that nah, the target keeps whatever resource it used.
Because Counterspell isn't "Drain Magic". It counters a spellcast, almost always wasting the target's entire turn. It should not also siphon away the enemy's magical power and make them less able to cast. You're trading your Energy resource to deny an enemy their Time resource - you exchange a Reaction (dramatically less valuable than an Action) and some magic energy in the form of a spell slot to nullify a target's Action. Still incredibly valuable, simply not so valuable it's a non-negotiable must-have and deeply unfair and unfun for the DM.
As an alternative, I would propose that instead of a Constitution Saving throw on the part of the target, that it remain an ability check on the part of the caster. My suggestion is that Counterspell automatically counters spells 3rd level or lower, but if the spell is 4th level or higher:
No. I'm sick of Counterspell Math. The spell either works or it doesn't, no more bullshit spell level comparison ****ery. Now, I do wish it was specifically a Concentration check rather than a Constitution save, and they could make the Concentration check against your spell save DC. That both rewards the player's power by involving their spell save, and accounts for the target's abilities. Spellcasters who specifically train in improving their Concentration (War Caster and such) are markedly more resistant to Counterspell, as they should be. Frankly that's what a few of my homebrew attempts to fix Counterspell have tried to do - effectively allow you to break the enemy's Concentration on a spell they're about to cast, rather than one they've already cast.
This is a pretty perfect summary of why I'm really happy with the counterspell changes as well. I do agree with your final point re: concentration, it makes sense that someone who takes the "war caster" feat would be more readily equipped to maintain their concentration during the casting of a spell as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
COUNTERSPELL
Level 3 Abjuration (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
Casting Time: Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The creature must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell dissipates with no effect, and the action, Bonus Action, or Reaction used to cast it is wasted. If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended.
Note: The UA7 version doesn't benefit from upcasting (though I like this, more on that later).
What It Does Wrong
The design notes state Counterspell's current implementation "failed to account for the capabilities of the target" which is why they implemented a Constitution Save from the target as opposed to a skill check from the caster. I find this both thematically and mechanically bankrupt.
Thematically, short of fighting Mystra herself, we're all casting from the same weave so the "abilities of the target" are largely irrelevant, and even if they weren't Constitution isn't even on my Top 5 ways of representing that.
Mechanically, this isn't solving any real existing problem while creating so many more, including but not limited to:
I understand that thematically it might feel right to make certain enemies all-but-immune to counterspell, but this creates more problems for the player than it solves for the DM. OneD&D has already been soft-nerfing Counterspell with more innate casting and spell-like abilities, but I thought this was clever and often the spells that were leftover were the ones you'd want to counter anyway (again, really healthy design). But with this change you either have innate casters who you can't counterspell because they're casting without components, spell-like abilities which you can't counter because they're not spells, and now when you finally face off against a legendary enemy that is casting honest spells ... you still won't get a Counterspell to stick. Then even if you do get it to stick, your spell slot is gone, and the enemy still has theirs.
What It Does Right
Removing upcast scaling was a really good choice. Counterspell has always felt like a necessary evil. You don't really feel how good it is because you dont' feel what it stops, and because of the way it scales with upcasting it takes the place of higher level spells you wish you could be casting with those slots instead. By removing upcast scaling, you'll always be incentivized to cast it at the lowest possible level and save your high level slots for the high level spells you actually want to cast. This is wonderful.
As an alternative, I would propose that instead of a Constitution Saving throw on the part of the target, that it remain an ability check on the part of the caster. My suggestion is that Counterspell automatically counters spells 3rd level or lower, but if the spell is 4th level or higher:
I'm personally a fan of the last two as I think it encompasses what the design team was after (target's ability mattering) while not creating a bunch of weird hoops for players and freeing up higher level spell slots that no longer need to be sand-bagged for Counterspell. Generally I'm all for making more skills matter, making expertise in skills matter, and making skills important in combat scenarios.
I would apply these same rules to DIspel Magic.
The Abjuration Wizard's level 10 feature would need to be changed to something like ... granting them proficiency in Arcana, if they have proficiency then expertise, and if they have expertise then Advantage on all Arcana checks. This way they still essentially remain the premier defensive casters.
I have never liked the current CS and think this is a marked improvement. It makes no sense that counterspelling an archlich and counterspelling a goblin shaman essentially have the same success rate.
Spellcasters are already bound to CON due to concentration, so there's no change there. And who cares if a monster loses its slot or not? Enemies have an average life expectancy of 3-4 rounds tops. They should not need to conform to the same resource management that PCs do, because they are designed for different purposes.
Counterspell always felt like a necessary evil because it was too good not to take. It succeeds so often that it's a no-brainer, and the result is that someone who wanted to do a cool thing doesn't get to do their cool thing anymore. It needed a nerf.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Make it so Countspell spell slot does NOT get used if target makes the save.
Remove counterspell and just have it a Skill challenge Arcana vs Arcana. One caster's knowledge of spell craft knowing how to disrupt a spell and the target using arcana to work around the attempt of the Counter the spell. (Add this to the MAGIC action)
.
counterspell can still be counterspelled...
So I think the design is not about the monster you are fighting losing the spell slot. It is in effect granting you free attempts to prevent the monster from casting the spell and becomes a must have spam spell
Most enemies don’t use spellslots to cast. This spell is designed in favor of the player. If you the player get counterspelled you only lose the action not the spell. If you counterspell the lich and some how succeed they lose the action and there spell per day. They don’t have a spell slot unless the DM made them a player character and not a monster.
In the video it's explicitly stated if the spell was cast another way other than a spell slot it loses it.
It also says someone shouldn't lose a 9th level slot to counterspell.
Now, I'm a bit skeptical still, but with a few clarifications I'm pretty certain that means slots for monster started as monsters and NPCs with per day spells are going to lose them and npc's started as PC's will keep them.
Why? Some creatures are naturally going to be better at punching spells through interference than others. You're presumably casting your best Counterspell every time you cast; the current design aligns with the usual way the game works and forces the target to try and resist the effect rather than checking to see if you were too dumb to remember how to Counterspell that day.
I do not remotely agree. Counterspelling the local hedge wizard is one thing; counterspelling Vecna is entirely another. The abilities of the target should matter tremendously. Whether Constitution is the right thing or not is another matter, but no - Counterspell absolutely needs to respect the abilities of the target.
Working as intended. The game is better when dumping stats hurts, and when a character wants every stat but can't have it. This is one of D&D's biggest weaknesses, the fact that many or even most classes simply couldn't care less about half (or more!) of the game's supposed 'core' stats. Anything that makes players think harder about how to balance their ability scores is beneficial. Besides, it's not like the average player isn't fishing for the thiccest Con score they can get anyways; I'm the only player in my entire play group who routinely plays Con scores below 14.
And? The ability check debuff from Hex is basically a ribbon. I've used it as a sort of juju-jinx, Hexing someone with disadvantage on Dex checks as a sort of "curse of clumsiness" to get a waitress to drop a drink order (in fairness, she called me names first), but that's entirely DM fiat. It's never been the main purpose of Hex, or even a good secondary purpose.
Your argument here is against Legendary Resistance, not Counterspell. LR is a problem, but it's one without a good solution without completely reworking every spell or spell-like effect in D&D from the ground up. So long as hard-disable "Save or Suck" abilities exist in D&D, Legendary Resistance is a necessity, and Counterspell wearing it down is simply another way to burn through them faster.
Magic Resistance makes you resistant to an enemy's magic? Huh. Sounds like it's working as intended to me.
It's almost like Counterspell is super ******* broken in its 2014 state and is DM-banned from many tables kinna specifically because it ignores the target's abilities and allows a player to just completely turn off any spellcasting enemy and render them a trivial nonchallenge no matter how powerful or well-prepared...
Nah. See, this also means that when the DM Counterspells you - which they're allowed to do no matter how often players cry foul about it - you don't lose your resource either. Besides, remember - almost nothing left in the game has "spell slots" anymore, they have "Casts/day". They still have to expend one of those, and don't get it back if Counterspell connects.
Or so J. Craw says, I'd personally rule that nah, the target keeps whatever resource it used.Because Counterspell isn't "Drain Magic". It counters a spellcast, almost always wasting the target's entire turn. It should not also siphon away the enemy's magical power and make them less able to cast. You're trading your Energy resource to deny an enemy their Time resource - you exchange a Reaction (dramatically less valuable than an Action) and some magic energy in the form of a spell slot to nullify a target's Action. Still incredibly valuable, simply not so valuable it's a non-negotiable must-have and deeply unfair and unfun for the DM.
No. I'm sick of Counterspell Math. The spell either works or it doesn't, no more bullshit spell level comparison ****ery. Now, I do wish it was specifically a Concentration check rather than a Constitution save, and they could make the Concentration check against your spell save DC. That both rewards the player's power by involving their spell save, and accounts for the target's abilities. Spellcasters who specifically train in improving their Concentration (War Caster and such) are markedly more resistant to Counterspell, as they should be. Frankly that's what a few of my homebrew attempts to fix Counterspell have tried to do - effectively allow you to break the enemy's Concentration on a spell they're about to cast, rather than one they've already cast.
Please do not contact or message me.
There is no such thing as a concentration check, and if there were, then Legendary Resistance and Magic Resistance could not apply.
Just tweak the wording slightly, which is a good suggestion in the next survey.
Con check, no but Con save yes, and that's semantics. I knew what he meant. It would be nice to have their con save be against your spell DC.
Is that not exactly how the spell works?
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)
From a flavor perspective, are you countering the spell or the caster? 2014 Counterspell seems to be countering the spell where the chance of success/failure is determined by the level of the spell. UA7 Counterspell seems to be countering the caster, where the success/failure is determined by the caster. Different people can have different views on which is the appropriate theme.
And kudos for mentioning Magic the Gathering "Remand". I was thinking of that reference too, and remembering how in counterspell wars, Remanding your own spell was sometimes the best play. Looking at UA7 Counterspell, Countering your own spells could pay off in niche situations where (a) the monster has a high CON save, (b) your team/allies have more total spell slots, and (c) you have a terrible CON save.
I have no problem with it being a saving throw, but it should be a mental saving throw.
And the one that best fits is int, which is also high in wizards and wizards are supposed to be the best at counterspell (due to their arcane knowledge).
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.
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)
I'm actually not opposed to the changes, though I do wonder if Constitution is the right saving throw to use; why not the target's spellcasting ability? Though it being Constitution only would give sorcerer's an interesting extra boost.
I would also like to see upscaling return, but in a form where the difference in spell levels applies to the save as a bonus or penalty. Wording might be something like "If counterspell is cast at a different level than triggering spell, apply the difference to the spell save DC (as bonus if counterspell is of a higher level, or a penalty if it is lower)".
This way the level of spell still has an impact, and you can still throw a higher level counterspell at something you really want to stop, but it comes at either high cost, or high risk; e.g- a 9th-level counterspell vs. a 3rd-level spell is a nice big +6 bonus, but that still may not guarantee success.
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.
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.
Personally I don't dislike the change, it makes sense that it's a constitution save, because of concentration (More utility for the "War caster" feat, maybe increase DC if you have ARCANE proficiency), possibly better than 5e and I prefer it, but even so I think it could be better, for example I wouldn't have removed the scaling, I would put that each higher level of the used spell slot increases the DC to overcome by +1,
and maybe from the level 5 also consumes the spell slot of the neutralized spell, as if you expended more effort to cut off the enemy's concentration to also consume the spell slot that was exposed when attempting to perform magic.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.
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.
At this point, I forget lol. I also don't play wizards so....
I mean, it says how the spell works right at the top of the thread.
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)
This is a pretty perfect summary of why I'm really happy with the counterspell changes as well. I do agree with your final point re: concentration, it makes sense that someone who takes the "war caster" feat would be more readily equipped to maintain their concentration during the casting of a spell as well.