D&D (2024) Is Counterspell less frustrating now?

[tetrasodium]

Well there is as some spells take more rhan an action, but it goes action-minute-10 minutes-etc.

Yes there are spells like that, but you are describing a hurdle of "this can be used in combat or pretty much only while not in combat" when the talk is about a hurdle that made the act of casting casting some spells feel different no matter when they were cast. Comparing the casting time on 3.5's sleep & web is a good example.... Both could radically alter how a fight opens & plays out but one was a relatively quick thing that was likely possible to get off before getting noticed approached & attacked while the other left the caster standing there casting until all of that had completed.

 

[mamba]

There has been a way to interrupt casters while casting spells at least since 2e, it existed in 3.5 too. It just happened to come in the form of taking damage while casting.

and it should return to that

Counterspell is the only way to prevent a spell being cast in 5e, and it's necessary.

this needs fixing, not digging in

 

[Leatherhead]

I just don't see WotC doing anything like letting the fighter stab a caster to interrupt a spell right now. The Revision just isn't going to have that huge of a change to a core mechanic.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Yes there are spells like that, but you are describing a hurdle of "this can be used in combat or pretty much only while not in combat" when the talk is about a hurdle that made the act of casting casting some spells feel different no matter when they were cast. Comparing the casting time on 3.5's sleep & web is a good example.... Both could radically alter how a fight opens & plays out but one was a relatively quick thing that was likely possible to get off before getting noticed approached & attacked while the other left the caster standing there casting until all of that had completed.

Even "non-combat" spells are incredibly hard to stop for anyone without Counterspell. Dumb 5e thing is a mage could cast a minute-long spell that doesn't need concentraction during combat and it would go off regardless of the damage dealt, assuming they have the hit points to survive the abuse.

 

[mamba]

I just don't see WotC doing anything like letting the fighter stab a caster to interrupt a spell right now. The Revision just isn't going to have that huge of a change to a core mechanic.

agreed, they basically avoided any improvements that aren’t minor tweaks, unfortunately

 

[Stalker0]

Dumb 5e thing is a mage could cast a minute-long spell that doesn't need concentraction during combat and it would go off regardless of the damage dealt, assuming they have the hit points to survive the abuse.

Note that by the book, longer casting spells like rituals automatically require concentration, so you can absolutely disrupt them with damage.

To quote the rules:

Longer Casting Times​

Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Reading through the thread, I have a handful of different thoughts. Numbered for my own convenience.

1) One of the nerfs to the OD&D counterspell I was most worried about, was the nerf where the caster keeps their spell slot. This felt like a huge deal to me at first, because then it was only a delay and the enemy could just cast their spell again. However, on further reflection after some comments on this thread... well, that isn't actually a big change.

Take a 2014 Archmage, they go to cast "Cone of Cold" upon the party. The wizard counterspells. Okay... well, next turn they have two 5th level slots, a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th which can all cast Cone of Cold. Even if you assume the spell slot loss, you would need them to try and recast the same spell half a dozen times for them to actually be stopped. Now, this changes if we are talking about Meteor Swarm, but I still think this is not nearly as much of a nerf to the usefulness of Counterspell as I first imagined. After all, spending three rounds doing nothing but trying to contribute to the fight is pretty darn good for the party.

2) A lot of people have said that this is going to be no longer as useful because of the new monster design. And that is... not quite accurate. Looking over Mordenkainen presents, many of the spellcasting monsters still have spells. They may have a single non-spell magic action, but most of them are for at-will attacks, like the bard getting Cacophony which is... shatter. And I don't think anyone was going to be counterspelling a shatter, even if it were at will instead of on a recharge.

Now, I'm not saying there are no spellcasting monsters that have non-spell abilities. Obviously some do, and obviously some of them are decently powerful, but I'm not sure how much of an impact that will have in real-terms. And if it becomes too onerous, well, it doesn't take a whole lot to alter it to be susceptible to the new counterspell. Instead of having to figure out what level these new abilities are and how to handle losing a spell slot when the ability is refreshed on a die roll... you just make them do a con save and the ability isn't expended. It smoothly transitions.

3) Martials being able to interrupt casting? I'd like that either as a fighting style or part of mage slayer. I understand the idea of martials not requiring something special if "spellcasters" don't but... well, I think those people forget that only Warlocks, Sorcerers and Wizards can counterspell natively. Clerics, Druids, Artificers, Rangers and Paladins can't. Bards only can if they expend a Magical Secrets to do so. So, it may FEEL like casters don't need to expend anything, but that isn't entirely accurate to the situation.

Now, I could see an argument made for using your action to ready to attack a caster to interrupt them, and THAT being free to everyone, and I'd be 100% on board with that. But as a general ability, I think I want it a little more specialized.

4) There has been a lot of discussion about Legendary Resistance, and a lot of discussion about 3.X, and a lot of discussion about "bad boss design". I have to wonder... do people really not remember 3.X boss design?

Let's roll out an Ancient Red Dragon and compare for a moment.

5e -> Legendary Resistance 3/day, Blindsight 60 ft (immune to blinded condition within 60 ft), Fire Immunity. Saving throws against spell effects.

3.X -> Immune to Paralysis, Immune to Sleep, Blindsense 60 ft (immune to blinded condition within 60 ft), Fire Immunity, 15 DR bypassed by magical weapons, Spell Resistance 28, and according to the SRD I'm reading "Each variety of dragon has immunity to one or two additional forms of attack no matter what its age, as given in its description." I'm not exactly sure what this is referring to. Oh, and then saving throws.

So, are we really going to say that 5e design is WORSE for shutting down abilities? 3.X dragons of all ages are flat-out immune to paralysis and sleep effects, and the way spell resistance worked, a caster rolled 1d20+their caster level to affect a creature AT ALL and they did this PER SPELL. And THEN the dragon got to make their spell save. Even a 20th level caster only has a 65% chance of any spell they casting working at all. (I'm sure someone is going to "well, actually..." this by pointing out ways that a caster could get abilities to manipulate these numbers, but that isn't my point)

And, many of the spells in 3.5 had HD limits on top of that. Spells would say things like "you can stun X number of creatures with 10 HD or less" and the Ancient Dragon would be immune to THAT as well.

Meanwhile, 5e dragons just have three guaranteed saves. You cast Cone of Cold on an Ancient Red? Even if they make their spell save they take half damage. Even with Legendary resistance.

Or, maybe dragons are a bad example. Let's look at liches.

5e Lich -> 3/day legendary resistance, immune to fear, charm, exhaustion, poison, paralysis. Resistance to cold, lightning, necrotic, true sight (not immune to blindness), saving throws.

3.X Lich -> As an undead a lich is immune to all mind-affecting effects, including fear, charm, morale, ect. They are immune to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects. They are immune to critical hits, sneak attack, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. Necrotic damage heals them. Immune to any effect requiring a fortitude save. THEN, we get into the Liches personal things. Like immunity to cold and lightning damage. Immunity to Polymorph effects and mind-affecting attacks (psychic damage?). Damage Resistance 15 bypassed by magic or bludgeoning

And then we have to consider the same HD concerns.

Older editions of DnD are packed FULL of things like this. Entire monster types or entire classes of enemy just flat-out immune to laundry lists of effects and abilities. In 5e if you cast Tasha's Mind Whip the lich might use one of their three auto-saves to reduce the damage and avoid the debilitating effect. In 3.5 that same spell would just... flat out not work. Neither would lightning bolt. Neither would Cone of Cold. Something like Finger of Death would HEAL the lich instead of just being less effective.

Yes, Legendary resistance is a 3/day "no, I won't fall here" effect. But compared to what DnD used to do and is still done in Video Game RPGs of just flat out making the boss immune to any debilitating affect permanently? It's a much more interesting design.

 

[James Gasik]

3.X -> Immune to Paralysis, Immune to Sleep, Blindsense 60 ft (immune to blinded condition within 60 ft), Fire Immunity, 15 DR bypassed by magical weapons, Spell Resistance 28, and according to the SRD I'm reading "Each variety of dragon has immunity to one or two additional forms of attack no matter what its age, as given in its description." I'm not exactly sure what this is referring to. Oh, and then saving throws.

This is referring to the immunity to their breath weapon damage type most dragons have, but occasionally they get an extra immunity- silver dragons being immune to cold and acid, for example.

With the red dragon (and a few others), things are a little strange- the red dragon would always be immune to fire. But having the Fire subtype also grants them immunity to fire and gives them nothing in return save for a vulnerability to cold- great design there, there Wizards!

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is referring to the immunity to their breath weapon damage type most dragons have, but occasionally they get an extra immunity- silver dragons being immune to cold and acid, for example.

With the red dragon (and a few others), things are a little strange- the red dragon would always be immune to fire. But having the Fire subtype also grants them immunity to fire and gives them nothing in return save for a vulnerability to cold- great design there, there Wizards!

Ah, okay. The "two" got me confused, because every example was just one other damage type, so I wasn't sure if there was something I was missing.