I'm going to need to read the argument on this.It just slows the game down and makes it dumber. That's literally the sole impact it has. The game becomes more boring and less tactical, great, awesome thanks. The smarter your players are, the worse the impact, too (conversely with dumb-as-rocks players it's fine).
I think it's self-evident. You're just saying "NUH UH" to spells. That's not interesting or engaging. The smarter your players are, the more specifically they'll target it to powerful or interesting spells (and vice-versa with DMs who are targeting PCs). It doesn't add depth or anything it just results in rounds where nothing happens for a caster. And the only people who can do it are other casters.I'm going to need to read the argument on this.
cast spells from 65ft away?I think it's self-evident. You're just saying "NUH UH" to spells. That's not interesting or engaging. The smarter your players are, the more specifically they'll target it to powerful or interesting spells (and vice-versa with DMs who are targeting PCs). It doesn't add depth or anything it just results in rounds where nothing happens for a caster. And the only people who can do it are other casters.
This may be a personal blindspot for me. I have no problem with this, conceptually.I think it's self-evident. You're just saying "NUH UH" to spells. That's not interesting or engaging. The smarter your players are, the more specifically they'll target it to powerful or interesting spells (and vice-versa with DMs who are targeting PCs). It doesn't add depth or anything it just results in rounds where nothing happens for a caster. And the only people who can do it are other casters.
I'd be down to make casting a spell provoke an opportunity attack and forcing a concentration check to complete the casting.And the only people who can do it are other casters.
that should be default rule for any spell that is not melee touch.I'd be down to make casting a spell provoke an opportunity attack and forcing a concentration check to complete the casting.
I've had enough boss monsters in my game get completely shut down by counterspell, which is why I tossed it myself. I found that I was starting to design combats completely around this one spell....and when that starts to happen I know a spell has gotten too good.This may be a personal blindspot for me. I have no problem with this, conceptually.
I'd much have the opportunity attack and concentration, rather than having to make a concentration check to keep Stoneskin active because a bunch of monkeys scored some hits with their ranged fecal fling attacks.I'd be down to make casting a spell provoke an opportunity attack and forcing a concentration check to complete the casting.
I like it being a save, but I agree Con is a weird choice. I guess since Con is used for concentration, they figured they’d roll woth Con being the “don’t get your spells disrupted” stat? I’d have gone with the stat they used to cast the spell, personally.I think this is better than it was before, but not great. The fact that it targets Con saves seems like a weird choice for a spellcaster-messing-with spell.
My preference for counterspell is as it is at present (caster makes a check), but you always have to make a check to succeed; and you have disadvantage if the spell being countered is higher level; and maybe you have advantage if it's lower level.
I’m not sure how I feel about this change. I don’t think I like it, but I need more time to chew on it.I do like the "don't lose the slot if countered" bit from the playtest.