D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Ancalagon]

Why?

Because the new monster format has monsters not actually casting spells

Dungeons & Dragons Just Nerfed One of Its Most Popular Spells

A recent design change in Dungeons & Dragons had some unexpected consequences on a popular spell. The Wild Beyond the Witchlight introduced retooled statblocks for NPCs and spellcasting monsters, with a goal of making their damage output more in line with their Challenge Rating and to streamline...

comicbook.com

Going back to the example in the first paragraph, a Level 5 PC could easily shut down that evil sorcerer trying to fireball his party, provided that the sorcerer was within range and the PC was ready to burn a 3rd level spell slot. However, they wouldn't be able to stop a "Fiery Explosion" action, as the description for that action does not describe it as a spell.

 

[Scribe]

Why?

Because the new monster format has monsters not actually casting spells

Dungeons & Dragons Just Nerfed One of Its Most Popular Spells

A recent design change in Dungeons & Dragons had some unexpected consequences on a popular spell. The Wild Beyond the Witchlight introduced retooled statblocks for NPCs and spellcasting monsters, with a goal of making their damage output more in line with their Challenge Rating and to streamline...

comicbook.com

That seems to be a flaw to be corrected.

 

[ReshiIRE]

That seems to be a flaw to be corrected.

The great thing is that depneding on one's perspective, the flaw being corrected is counterspelling being nerfed - or counterspelling being too strong

(I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I do think the way Pathfinder 2e does it seems better on paper once you understand the counteract rules. IMO, I would change Counterspell so that it doesn't have an upcast benefit OR change the rules so that a reactive spell cannot be used on the same turn as another levelled spell, and vice versa).

 

[Scribe]

I consider counterplay to be important, in pretty much any game I can think of which I have put meaningful time into.

Counterspelling an NPC, would sit pretty darn high on that list of 'counter play' choices.

 

[Shiroiken]

I know a lot of DMs will cheer for this, since they detest counterspell, but I feel this is a really bad idea. The change to spellcasters is a step in the wrong direction IMO, and I hope they at least keep the "character is a X level caster," allowing DMs to convert them backwards.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I certainly hope this change if it goes through will come with a change to legendary resistances - on paper (no play experience with this) it feels weird that some creatures can deny a player's spell (even if it is limited to a certain amount of times in a battle). Reducing the duration I can get, but on paper I think I'd find it a bit annoying, particular if it was a spell that just so happened to target a weak save.

 

[robus]

I think this is a bit of a strong reading, one spell has been made into an action, the remaining spells can all be counterspelled.

I think it‘s a good change that will make running spellcasting NPCs much easier. The new War Cleric example I saw looked great.

 

[Mordhau]

DM: The evil wizard throws a fiery explosion at you.
Wizard player: I counterspell it!
DM: You can't it's not a spell.
Wizard player: What is it then? What is he doing?
DM: He wiggles his fingers and says some eldritch words.
Player: So it is a spell! I counterspell.
DM: But it doesn't say it's a spell.
Player: So he's not an evil wizard then. Is he somesort of Genie perhaps. Hey cleric? You got a Banishment ready?
DM: No he's a wizard.
Player: So it's a spell.

I find that article a very weird take. The point to my mind seems to be making monster stat blocks easy to use. That's a good thing. I doubt they intentionally nerfed counterspell. They probably just didn't consider how ridiculously rules lawyery D&D players are. Possibly they need to add something like a spell keyword.

If counterspell is too powerful then FFS they should just fix counterspell. Offering false promises would not be fixing anything, it's just bad design ("We're going to pretend to give you something overpowered, but then we're going to screw you by never giving you a chance to use it. Hey, take that player who thought you had access to an ability that would actually be useful").

 

[Scribe]

DM: The evil wizard throws a fiery explosion at you.
Wizard player: I counterspell it!
DM: You can't it's not a spell.
Wizard player: What is it then? What is he doing?
DM: He wiggles his fingers and says some eldritch words.
Player: So it is a spell! I counterspell.
DM: But it doesn't say it's a spell.
Player: So he's not an evil wizard then. Is he somesort of Genie perhaps. Hey cleric? You got a Banishment ready?
DM: No he's a wizard.
Player: So it's a spell.

Exactly this.

You cannot (I mean they CAN...but you know) disconnect the narrative, from the function, to this degree and still maintain a 'live in world' type feeling.

Its so flawed it immediately breaks you out of the game. Just...no.

 

[Ancalagon]

Couterspell is "too powerful" because people forget that it has to be cast "blind" - you don't have time to figure out what you are countering.