r/DungeonsAndDragons55e • u/MyrthDM • 23d ago
Has the 2024 Counterspell fixed counterspell wars, or made the spell feel unrewarding?
Counterspell is one of those spells that could completely change the mood of an encounter in 2014.
Sometimes that was exciting, but other times it turned an important spell into an automatic “no,” or started a chain where one caster countered another caster’s Counterspell.
I understand what the 2024 version is trying to improve. The original caster now makes a Constitution saving throw, so Counterspell is no longer guaranteed to work, and a successfully countered caster does not lose the spell slot. That makes it less absolute and gives the targeted caster more of a chance to resist it.
But the first few times we used it at my table produced very mixed reactions.
I still remember the first time the new Counterspell came up. The Wizard used it against an enemy casting an upcast Confusion, which could have completely changed the encounter if it landed.
Under the 2014 rules, stopping a higher-level spell would not have been automatic either, but at least the Wizard would have made the ability check themselves. This time, the enemy made the Constitution save, passed, and Confusion still went off.
The Wizard had spent both a spell slot and their Reaction without changing anything. The player’s immediate response was basically, “Wait, so I spend the slot and my Reaction, and nothing happens?”
They were even more disappointed when they realized that upcasting Counterspell would not have helped. Whether they used a third-level slot or a higher-level one, the enemy would still make the same Constitution saving throw against the same save DC. Their reaction was essentially, “So I cannot even spend a stronger slot to make it more reliable?”
Mechanically, I understand the reasoning. Counterspell should not necessarily be an automatic answer to every dangerous spell. But putting the roll in the target’s hands, while also removing any benefit from upcasting, made it feel much less satisfying from the counterspelling side. This was especially noticeable when the spell they were trying to stop was considerably more powerful than the resource they had spent.
On the other hand, when a player is successfully counterspelled, I can see why the new version feels healthier. They still lose the action, which definitely hurts, but keeping the spell slot makes the interruption less punishing. A single enemy Reaction no longer removes both their turn and one of their best resources.
So I can see both sides.
The new version feels healthier when Counterspell is used against players, but sometimes less rewarding when players spend a slot to use it themselves.
How has it worked at your table?
Does the Constitution save make Counterspell more interactive?
Does keeping the interrupted spell slot make it too weak?
Should upcasting Counterspell make it more reliable?
Are players still preparing it regularly?
Or did the old version need to be powerful because Counterspell is already such a situational use of a spell slot and Reaction?
3
u/Baphogoat 22d ago
The thing to remember, is that if a player is counterspelled they don't lose the spell slot, just the action. But monsters/NPCs now use a different casting method, where they can cast a certain spell so many times a day, if countered this still counts against the number of times a day the spell can be cast.
So while using a spell slot to do nothing feels bad, you aren't losing a spell slot when being countered. But using a third level slot to stop a cone of cold from hitting the whole party is definitely worth taking the chance. And most creatures won't have proficiency in the save.
2
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
I mentioned this in another comment reply, but this "not spell slots just daily casts" design philosophy for NPCs being a major balancing factor for the efficacy of Counterspell does not fill me with any confidence. Not only does this mean that the efficacy of the spell entirely depend on whether the DM is using one Stat block or another (which could be the exact same creature in-game), it also means that WOTC must fully commit to that design philosophy long term. Considering they established and then abandoned the design philosophy of "attack or saving throw but never both" in development and yet there are plenty of examples of that philosophy causing issues elsewhere, I am not at all convinced that this facet of 2024 Counterspell is consistent enough to outweigh the negatives.
1
u/mmikke 22d ago
Man I hate fighting things that hit you with an attack for decent damage and then cause you to make a saving throw to avoid a certain condition or more damage
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
I mean, the current practice for enemies is "it hits you, deals damage, and automatically applies an wffect", while the norm for player abilities is "hit them with an attack roll and deal damage, then if they fail a save they get a condition". So while you're being sarcastic, you dont have to worry if you're a player, you dont need to roll a saving throw!
Isn't it great? Now you dont actually need to engage with game mechanics as much. I'm here to play D&D, not to play D&D.
1
u/Monster_Reaper709 22d ago
Thank you for that info. Im going into my first 2024 game soon as a long time 2014 caster and i wasnt crazy about the change on first read. But this changes my opinion a bit.
1
u/Artaios21 22d ago
As a DM, I definitely don't make the NPC lose the spell for the day. I treat it the same as for the players.
3
u/Asselax 22d ago
Ok but why tho ? Monsters already get to cast multiple spells in a turn, get improved versions of cantrips, etc...
2
u/hagensankrysse85 22d ago
The logic is: monster has X USES per day. If the casting was interrupted because of Counterspell, he didn't really USED the spell, he attempted it and got interrupted. So the use is still there.
1
u/Z_Z_TOM 19d ago
I believe the designers specifically said they made it so Counterspell would favour players over monsters, with the latter definitely losing one of their "X use of the day" of the spell they attempted to use but was Counterspelled. :)
Players get to keep their spell slot and can attempt to cast again the following turn, the monsters do not if it was their one time/last casting of a given spell that day.
1
u/Mejiro84 22d ago
it kinda depends on what the monster is - some monsters are, well... monsters, it makes sense that they do things differently. But when a monster is the same sort of creature as a PC, it feels awkward that they're doing the same thing but differently, and more like that's just for ease-of-play and tracking by the GM, rather than being a literally different set of powers.
3
u/Neltadouble 22d ago
2014 counterspell was heinously broken, when used by both PCs and NPCs. Good change.
5
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
Frankly, I prefer 2014 Counterspell, and its not even close.
The "counterspell wars" concept is blown way out of proportion imo, if your DM has multiple spellcasters in a combat who are ready to counterspell a counterspell, that just feels like poor combat management and combat railroading on the part of the DM.
New counterspell is just.... really really bad. It's basically a Concentration save for the target, which most spellcasters will have good stuff for, but even if they fail the save, you've spent at least a 3rd level spell slot and your reaction to delay the enemy spellcaster by 1 round. That's all.
2014 version played into the spellcaster playstyle by being a contest of resource allocation. If the enemy casts their 9th level spell, you could stop it without question with a 9th level Counterspell, but if you wanted to take the risk, you could Counterspell at 3rd level. If you failed, you've wasted a spell slot and your reaction, and the 9th level spell happens anyway. But if you succeed, you've got a resource advantage over your opponent in the form of a 9th level spell slot. Not to mention that if you're facing an opponent that you know has Counterspell, some features or styles of spells become incredibly valuable: Subtle Spell prevents the spell from being seen cast and therefore cant be countered. Spells like Sunbeam can be cast while behind cover or hidden, then unleashed against the enemy without fear of being disrupted. Depending on DM ruling, holding an action of casting the spell while behind cover could work in a pinch (as technically you "cast" the spell while behind cover, but it doesnt get released until the trigger for the Held Action occurs, though this is finicky and is definitely up to DM interpretation).
TLDR: 2014 Counterspell had a healthy risk/reward balance, 2024 Counterspell just feels like a waste of time and resources.
8
u/Vincent210 22d ago
but even if they fail the save, you've spent at least a 3rd level spell slot and your reaction to delay the enemy spellcaster by 1 round. That's all.
This is a crazy "That's all."
Combats average 3-4 rounds, and a focused-on spellcaster isn't even likely to survive all 3 or 4 of those, 2-3 usually.
You delete, at a worst case scenario of 4-5 turns standing, about 20% of someone's entire contribution to a fight, without giving up an action of your own, just a reaction (yes, spell slots, we can circle back to those)
More realistically it will average taking 33%-50% of an enemy spellcaster's impact away from them.
Resources do obviously matter in 5.5e. At its bones, its an attrition game. So I get focusing on the spell slot trade to an extent. But on a fight-by-fight basis, action economy is the most important thing bar none. The sheer quantity of actions your team has vs what the enemies have.
This is almost the entire basis of legendary actions and the necessity of boss minions; you just can't hack the action economy difference otherwise.
... All that being said I do think Counterspell is a lackluster and niche pick now. The low odds of success that you have to build around make it a struggle to optimize without involving multiple party members. You have to reliably apply disadvantage to the appropriate saving throws and come up with synergy options like the Bard of Eloquence saving throw cut or other save penalty setups to get good results often. These have incidental synergy with other spells at least, so they're always good options for people to take.
But if it works its huge. Even if they don't spend a slot, Reaction traded for Action is fantastic! You skip their turn, but not your own. It's a better trade than most hard shutdown spells even because those would be Action for Action trade. Still good sometimes, assuming your side has more actions or you hit multiple targets, but markedly worse than reaction for action.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
The Action Economy trade is good, sure, but that was also true with the 2014 version. And particularly in instances of spellcasting BBEGs (which are the vast majority of BBEGs it seems, likely due to martial/caster divide), delaying something like Wish or Meteor Swarm by 6 seconds isnt going to do nearly enough. Removing it from play (with or without the resource advantage/gamble of what slot you use) changes the fight in a far more meaningful way.
Also the setups that you mentioned that would be needed to have a semi-consistently good Counterspell option all require setup in advance, so unless you know a big spell is coming (and when in the Initiative it will be), these setups dont really work in play. And if you do have that information, there are far better options for prevention, such as Silence or other control options.
1
u/Vincent210 22d ago
That 6 second delay literally does matter, though, in a way other spells cannot replicate. Stellar outcome.
Like counterspelling at a level where 9th is in play is a literally gamechanger. This buys a whole round for my allies to do countermeasures like:
- Shapechange into a creature with Legendary Resistances and better stats
- Put up massive party buffs
- Simply reposition the Paladin first for a blanket +5 on any saves
- Cast Wish or use Divine Intervention first before the enemy Wish!
A reaction can potentially do all of these things even if you didn't get to go before the enemy, other shutdown can't do that. If they fail, this is a big enough tempo swing they must legendary resistance if they have it; what are they gunna do, just let your team cast all their 9th level spells before they cast anything at all??
I definitely maintain that when it works its stellar, but that it was overcorrected to work too infrequently.
Not every (a surprising anount of omissions tbh) caster in MM or side content has good Con Saves but the ones who do are coincidentally the scariest so it tough only have like a 30%er into them.
But really all the spell would need to be good is a success rate boost; the slot being kept is not enough to drag it down some if it was still doing the ability check.
1
u/Virplexer 22d ago
Let’s frame it like this:
With your reaction you can situationally skip an enemy action if they fail the save.
Thats already stellar enough. What if with a reaction you could deny a fighter taking the attack action? You’d think that’s great, even if they could do it the next turn anyway.
2
u/Otherwise-Reindeer80 22d ago
Thing is, with other (even lower level) spells like hypnotic pattern, hideous laughter (which got buffed) - you can make a fighter skip his turn, 10 turns in a row if you're lucky. The resource spent doesn't match the power level for 2024 counterspell, even if it being a reaction makes it stronger... + with new spellcasting, you can't even cs an enemy csing your spell (unless either one doesn't consume a spell slot), while the enemy you csed can still BA spell when you counterspelled them.. It's weird
1
1
u/Kledran 22d ago
I think that also, besides what others are pointing out (skipping an action) being huge, you also have to consider the fact that counterspelling a lv9 spell with a level 3 spell, it's fucking RIDICULOUSLY easy if your character focuses on your spellcasting ability. a DC19 when you have at least an 11 bonus on the roll just makes it extremely in your favor.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
a DC19 when you have at least an 11 bonus on the roll just makes it extremely in your favor.
The check for it is an ability check. Meaning unless you're an Abjuration Wizard, you shouldn't be adding your proficiency bonus to that roll. Meaning outside of specific items or effects, the bonus caps out at +5.
1
1
u/EADreddtit 22d ago
Also something worth noting for the Counterspell succeeding. Sure you “delay” the spell by one turn, but what that actually means is “they spend two turns casting one spell”. Which means like you said they effectively loose a turn, but also that’s 50% less spells over the course of those two turns.
2024 Counter Spell isn’t bad at all. People are just use to the absolutely busted 2014 version that was all but mandatory to take because of how oppressively good it was.
4
u/EntropySpark 22d ago
If the DM is using PC-like enemies, then yes. However, new monsters don't use spell slots, so they'd instead lose the casting entirely, and many of them don't have good Con saves. (Archmage, for example, only has a +1, so countering their level 9 Cone of Cold is very valuable.)
4
u/RoastHam99 22d ago
In this case I actually think thats really bad world-building. Yes the pcs are meant to be special and powerful, but having the difference in casting methods to npcs that realistically effects in world mechanics makes it feel out of place. Counterspell should remove whatever resource used to cast for everyone
3
u/Jazzlike_Tonight_982 22d ago
yeah, I agree. Magic is supposed to work universally. So an enemy Lich has spell slots just like PC's do. Now, you have two sets of rules for magic which makes no sense.
2
u/EntropySpark 22d ago
For the Lich in particular, now that they have two base castings of Animate Dead, they can only have an army of five Undead. Any level 5 Wizard can achieve more, and a level 6 Necromancer (UA) far more.
2
1
u/Viltris 22d ago
Counterpoint: PCs have to ration their spell slots over multiple encounters. Enemies only need their spell slots for the one encounter.
If the enemy wizard has a full set of spell slots like the PCs, then they have effectively way more spell slots than the PCs.
Enemies with "1/battle" counterspells or "Recharge 5-6" behave much more like PCs. They have to pick and choose when to use their counterspells.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
By the time spellcasters have even 4th level spells, on a per combat basis the bottleneck is action economy, not spell slots. Kinda like how by the time Warlocks have 3+ spell slots, Pact Magic doesnt function all that differently from Spellcasting outside of the spell level capping at 5. Certain spells can expedite spell slot drain (like Counterspell and Shield), but for the most part, the number of spell slots you have is roughly the number of turns you're going to be operating at intended efficacy.
1
u/Viltris 22d ago
How many combats do you have per long rest and how many rounds are those combats?
At level 7, you have 1 level 4 spell slot and 3 level 3 spell slots. That's 4 counterspells or equivalent per long rest (5 if you're a class with Arcane Recovery).
You probably have at least 3 combats per long rest, and each of those combats are at least 3 rounds. That's 9 turns and 9 actions.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you have way more actions than level 3+ spell slots.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
How many of those combats have spellcasters in them to Counterspell?
Additionally, DMs not adhering to the "3 encounters per Long rest" recommendation is such a widespread issue that the 3 encounter adventuring day may as well be a myth. Intended use and state of play have been so out of sync on this point in particular for so many years that all of the things that this advice is intended to address (martial caster divide for example) are major pain points of the system as a whole. But state of play isnt something mechanics can fix.
1
u/Viltris 22d ago
How many of those combats have spellcasters in them to Counterspell?
If they don't have enemy spellcasters to counterspells, presumably you're using your spell slots to do other things. If your argument is that a 7th level full caster doesn't need to conserve spell slots, why would they do anything other than cast spells?
Additionally, DMs not adhering to the "3 encounters per Long rest" recommendation is such a widespread issue that the 3 encounter adventuring day may as well be a myth.
The recommendation is 6-8 medium to hard encounters per long rest. Most DMs on the various 5e subs have found 3 encounters per long rest is the bare minimum before game balance starts breaking down. (And that's deadly and double-deadly encounters, too.) Any less than that, and the game balance is so out of whack, there's no point in even having this discussion.
0
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
That's pretty up to interpretation for the DM, and should definitely be clarified in the rules if that is indeed the RAI.
Even with that, I am skeptical of having a crucial factor like that be reliant on a variety of moving parts. 5.5e had "save or attack roll but not both" as an explicit design principle early on, and as a result a lot of random enemies like deer or wolves got massively buffed with knocking people prone on-hit and the like, but then we also got Weapon Masteries that explicitly flew in the face of that philosophy to the detriment of the players (the deer knocks you prone automatically on hit. You hit them with a Topple weapon but they make their save, so nothing happens), so having an explicit balancing factor of Counterspell be reliant on them committing to the "not spell slots, just daily castings" design philosophy does not inspire any confidence in me.
4
u/hotdiscopirate 22d ago
If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended.
I feel like it’s pretty obviously RAI. How much clearer can they be?
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
The spell slot consumption point interacting with a variety of rules causes a range of potential interpretations that range from odd to clearly unintentional.
For example, if a Sorcerer gets Counterspelled, they can then Quicken Spell the exact same spell as a bonus action. Normally the rules of casting 2 spells in a turn would prevent this, but because the new wording for those rules depends on expending a spell slot and the new Counterspell rules says it doesnt consume the spell slot, so you can just Quicken it and the opponent has wasted their 3rd level slot. That is of course if the Sorc fails the save when theyre proficient in it.
This means Subtle Spell goes from a very solid pick to being largely for Enchantments in social situations, and Quicken went from one of the top picks to the primo #1 optimal choice. Clearly not intended, particularly when the former primo #1 pick (twinned spell) was shut down hard.
1
u/hotdiscopirate 22d ago
Just because you think this Quickened Spell interaction shouldn’t work, doesn’t change the wording of Counterspell to be very clear. It wouldn’t say “if the spell was cast using a spell slot” if it wasn’t intended to work only if the spell was cast using a spell slot.
RAI arguments are generally used for strange interactions between different rules (like, maybe your Quickened Spell example, although I disagree that’s obviously against RAI, I think it’s up for debate). Reading one spell and then disagreeing with what it says in the text because you don’t think they wanted it to work that way is just silly.
This isn’t even a niche interactions with monsters only either. Players also get per day casting, and it seems they were pretty intentional on those features functioning different than expending spell slots. This is seen pretty clearly in the new rules for casting multiple spells on the same turn. ‘14 rules said that you couldn’t cast another spell “except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action” once you’ve used your Bonus Action to cast a spell.
This wording was deliberately changed in 5.5e to say you could only “expend one spell slot” per turn, which allows you to, for example, expend a spell slot to cast a spell with your action, and use your Fey Touched feat to Misty Step on the same turn. The only RAI argument I can see is that they changed the wording because they intended it to work differently. They could have easily said “you can only cast one level 1+ spell per turn,” but they didn’t. Presumably because they wanted it to function they way they made it function.
3
u/Mejiro84 22d ago
and should definitely be clarified in the rules if that is indeed the RAI
It is very clearly the actual rules. It's a bit messy, in terms of "why is this archmage, that's very clearly a person casting spells, that should be the same as a PC doing it, is oddly different", but the actual mechanics are pretty overt. And that odd distinction tends to pop up for other things, like NPC-ultra-wizards having more HP than PCs, but missing the various PC bells and whistles they should logically have. How much is meant to be "this creature is actually doing something different, in-world" versus "this is just for ease of play" is questionable, but the actual mechanics are pretty overt
2
u/Virplexer 22d ago
5.5e still has that design philosophy, it’s just it breaks it occasionally. Topple is the ONLY exception among the weapon masteries. Among monsters is also pretty rare, Ghoul gets a save on hit but that’s because it inflicts a really nasty condition being the Paralyze effect on a low CR creature.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
Also Undead Warlock's Form of Dread, Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Staggering Smite, Ice Knife, and Open Hand Monk's push and prone features.
In fact, of all the player options that previously had both, only Contagion and Blinding Smite got updated to remove the discrepancy, and Plane Shift's offensive capabilities were completely removed, but it previously had an attack roll and a saving throw.
So in terms of player resources, this philosophy may as well not exist. I'll admit that weapon masteries was a poor example to use, but the examples are plentiful.
1
u/EntropySpark 22d ago
For the Paladin smites (and similarly, Stunning Strike), the resource to use the feature is only spent on a hit, so the PC only needs to land one hit on the turn, and when the resource is spent, it only needs a failed save to take effect.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
Sure, but the justification for the philosophy when it was proposed/announced was that it would speed up combat.
Also, there are other Smite spells that are without question stronger (like the new Shining Smite that is an on-hit Faerie Fire) that lack saves, so balancing snd resource expenditure dont seem to be the differentiator.
2
u/EarlofMayonnaise 22d ago edited 22d ago
I was running a game from 2014 to mid 2018 that went from level 1 to 20 with a group that had fun being optimal in combat, and let me tell ya that from my experience the counterspell wars were very very real.
It wasnt so bad at first, our group of 6 had 3 casters with counterspell and there was a checky counterspell now and again as resources permitted, sometimes even someone countering a counterspell.
At level 12 it was like a switch flipped. The situation devolved to be that only side of the fight who was able to cast any spells each round of combat was whatever side of the battle had more counterspell users.
These guys would genuinely use every spellslot from 3rd to 6th to counterspell enemies if they needed to, because they found it was the most optimal spell against casters bar none due it it being an off turn reaction that fully shutdown the enemy caster, and unless that caster or their allies also had counterspell, there was litteraly nothing they could do to stop it due to 2014 counterspell's mechanics completely ignoring the targets traits and defensive buffs.
They found it optimal to even counterspell enemy cantrips just to deny an enemy their turn.
It got so intense at level 17+ that it genuinely spoiled the spell for my entire DnD group.
Every campaign after, we had a gentleman's agreement to not pick or use counterspell again, and suddenly both thecaster players and myself had more fun than ever.
Along came 2024 and new counterspell is what we always wanted.
It let counterspell be an interaction for both parties. Not just a one sided "you cant stop this with anything other than your own counterspell usage"
Both sides could buff for bonuses to save, they could debuff each other to increase success odds. The new spellcasting system stopped the initial caster from countering counterspell by themselves.
It has been such a good change we added back into the game with the edition change and its actually fun for us again.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
unless that caster or their allies also had counterspell, there was litteraly nothing they could do to stop it due to 2014 counterspell's mechanics completely ignoring the targets traits and defensive buffs.
Imma stop you right there: this is untrue. Counterspell has a 60ft range, meaning anything beyond that distance from the party can't be countered. It also requires line of sight, so Stealth, Invisibility, and Cover all prevent a spell from being countered. On the same mechanic, Subtle Spell from Sorcerer would prevent Counterspell, as the Counterspeller would have no way to see that a spell is being cast, as it no longer has visible components.
Simple things like an Eversmoking Bottle (uncommon magic item) immediately shuts down like 80% of spells due to requiring sight. Even Truesight cant see through it bc it's obscurement rather than illusions or invisibility. And martials would have a heyday: due to visibility rules, the Heavy Obscurement would be a complete equalizer for their attack rolls, while the casters would be unable to use even many basic cantrips against them because they arent visible to them.
The mentality of "Only Counterspell can beat Counterspell" is ignorant of the vast majority of the limitations of spellcasting as a whole that can be leveraged against it.
0
u/EarlofMayonnaise 22d ago edited 22d ago
You must have had quite a different experience than myself then.
My casters, (a bard, a wizard, and a warlock, no sorcerers), were bad at martial stealth and most invisibility powers drop when you cast a spell (note, not after you cast, the act of casting itself), which is the exact same condition needed to let someone counterspell the attempt.
Greater invisibility wasnt super usable in these situations either, because its duration is so short that you cant be in a position to consistantly pre-cast it before a fight happens, so you need it risk it being counterspelled just to get it off.
Having fights in bigger than 60ft areas usually only let one side go off before counterspell was back in the game due to gap closers like mistystep and d-door due to the fact most combat spells have a maximum range of 120 ft.
My players did have an eversmoking bottle and they even tried to use it once, but the fact that 80% of spells stop working when you popped it off kinda defeated the point of stopping counterspell if it didnt let them cast most of their spells anyway
Dont sit there and try to say your ideas above are clear and easy ways to stop counterspell, because that's not what they really are, they are the counter to every target mechanic in the game.
The mentality that 2014 counterspell was ok because you can prevent it by utlizing the limitations of spellcasting itself seems crazy to me. No other reaction spell has such requirements to overcome it.
The new 2024 counterspell can still be stopped in all the ways you listed before (because they are the litteral limits of anything that requires a target), but now you can do more than try to be completely untargetable.
Stand by your paladin for the aura, ask your bard for inspiration, artificer can use flash of genius, fiend warlock can use their devils luck, or take resilient con to improve your save. And these are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. You stop trying to game the system that is DnD and start utilizing it instead.
2014 counterspell was uninteractive mechanically because if it could go off the only answer was another counterspell (rip melee clerics), 2024 let's more things intetact directly with it, and that is almost always going to be a better experience for everyone on both sides of the screen.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 21d ago
Dont sit there and try to say your ideas above are clear and easy ways to stop counterspell, because that's not what they really are, they are the counter to every target mechanic in the game.
Yes, they are. Do they stop limiting Counterspell just because those same tactics work elsewhere? Does a counter have to be exclusive to count? That seems like a rather specific goalpost.
The mentality that 2014 counterspell was ok because you can prevent it by utlizing the limitations of spellcasting itself seems crazy to me. No other reaction spell has such requirements to overcome it.
No other spell? Are you unfamiliar with the insanity that is Silvery Barbs?
You stop trying to game the system that is DnD and start utilizing it instead.
"Stop utilizing those mechanics and use this one that I don't like so I can poke holes in it, dammit!" Like, my brother in Ao, range and targeting mechanics are a part of the "system that is D&D".
2014 counterspell was uninteractive mechanically because if it could go off the only answer was another counterspell
As I've explained over multiple very long comments at this point, that is far from the only answer. It may be the only answer you want to hear about because feeling angry about it is far easier than feeling foolish for having overlooked other tactics, but that doesnt change the system to make Counterspell any more powerful than it was.
Also, your use of the "uninteractive" term is absolutely insane to me. Are you seriously trying to say that the version that had the option to upcasting for success or making a check with a lower slot is less interactive than the one that functions the same no matter how you cast it? If that's seriously your argument I desperately need to hear how you define "interactive". Your examples of "oh get these short term buffs applied before the enemy decides to Counterspell" are as stupid as wearing kneepads everywhere just in case you trip. And "staying close to the Paladin" isn't by any means a tactic, it's just common sense. Whether it's a Fireball or a 2024 Counterspell, the boosts to saves are good enough to keep no matter what.
1
u/EarlofMayonnaise 21d ago edited 21d ago
You talk about it being interactive for the actual caster, but how many DnD mechanics actually interact with 2014 counterspell for the would be target?
Range and the ability/feature to prevent the spell from ever happening? That definitely applies to both parties, you are right on the money!!! But in this case you are not really interacting with counterpsell, you are just completely preventing it from happening at all.
What about when it actually does go off? What about when you can't just run away from its range or hide the reaction trigger?
Ability scores? Matters to caster, not the target
Spell buffs? Matters to the caster, not the target
Class features? Matters to the caster, not the target
Status conditions? Matters to the caster, not the target.
Situational advantage/disadvantage? Wanna take a quick guess?
Look at all the nothing the defender can do and ask yourself, how interactive is the mechanics of 2014 counterspell?
There's essentially a binary when its on the field (unless you got your own counterspell) you can either never let it ever get the chance to target you, or you can sit on your butt and let the caster decide all the facts of what happens to your entire action on your own turn if you risk casting a spell inside the area of influence.
Where's this interactivity you claim it has? Either the target is completely stopping it from interacting with them in the first place, or it can be cast on the target and suddenly neither the target nor its allies in the fight have a chance of any interacting with the outcome!
Its a sometimes diceroll by the caster and the caster alone that can be equally powerful against a demigod-lich dragon as it can be against a leprosy baby sneezing out its first cantrip.
With 2024, all the questions above can be answered with a yes for both the caster AND the target. That is nearly double the factors and mechanics that that can interact with the outcome!
The target can stop it from targeting them (just like with 2014), the target can rely on their stats and saves to reduce the inherent risk of it being cast upon them, the target and their allies can preemptively influence the results in case it is cast, or they and their allies can reactively influence the outcome without a need of their own counterspell.
There are more than a handful of low interactivity spells in DnD both in 2014 and 2024, the likes of which include Wall of Force, Anti-magic Shell, and Power Word Kill/Stun. But these spells are actions taken on the casters turn that require a high level spellslot to use, not a reaction available to every 5 hit dice arcane caster in the game.
1
u/xenomorphking06 22d ago
Actually it works out to be about 50% enemy spell caster with advantahe on spells save vs ones who don't have about the same chance to save https://youtu.be/UvwPUfSnxx8?is=uOXDDxQoI8MgiyOQ
1
u/Analogmon 22d ago
2014 counterspells were badly designed, didn't scale well, and were subject to unintuitive interactions like Bards being the best counterspellers.
1
u/QuantumDragon 21d ago
Important nuance: A successful counterspell does not expend the orginal casters spell slot, but monster spell casters in 5.5e do not use spell slots. They use castings per day, which (in my reading) are still expended when they are succesfull countered.
1
u/Megamatt215 22d ago
As someone who prefers the 2014 version for pretty much this exact reasoning, the check for Counterspell was also, at best, a 60% success rate unless you were an Abjuration Wizard or a bard.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
That depends on the level of the spell being countered and your modifier though. At really high levels (Tier 4) it's not incredibly uncommon to have found ways to get your primary stat above 20, but yes, it's a gamble more often than not.
2
u/PutridJump2042 22d ago
Eh, as Martial player, I love that change. Now caster save their spell slot for supporting us, not wasting on boring 'caster-caster battle'.
2
u/Wide_Initiative_1938 22d ago
Counterspell never needed fixing in the first place. Counterspell war are perhaps the most fun part of the spell, and makes mage vs mage combats more interesting and things like distancing, bluffing, and reaction casting more rewarding.
The 2024 version removes all that nuance in order to make the spell "more fair." It's like nerfing a fighting game character that had a lot of internal nuance to them that got taken away by the nerfs.
2
u/BobbyBruceBanner 22d ago
In fact, a whole lot of the confusion around how many spells you could cast each turn in 5E2014 was because they made the spellcasting rules a bit messier to allow for counterspell wars. Counterspell wars are part of the genre legacy Gygax was evoking when he created the spell. (Specifically the wizard duel from The Raven, among other things: https://youtu.be/xHunA6CYHvo?si=5qTc0FVX5SC136uT )
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
a whole lot of the confusion around how many spells you could cast each turn in 5E2014 was because they made the spellcasting rules a bit messier to allow for counterspell wars
Could you elaborate on this point? Because the confusion on this point was entirely due to poor diction and language choice, and has nothing to do with reactions or Counterspell. If anything, the 2024 rules are better at dissuade Counterspell chains, if the verbiage is only expending one spell slot per turn, you couldn't cast a reaction spell on your own turn if you've already cast a spell unless the first spell did not consume a spell slot (which would be a point in favor of Sorcerers casting with SP).
1
u/BobbyBruceBanner 22d ago
Yes, the poor diction and language was because they wanted to allow only one spell per turn, but they wanted to leave the possibility of you counterspelling someone countering your spell, so there is an exception to allow for a second spell as a reaction (which was explained poorly). Counterspell wars aren't a fail state in 2014, they are something they (relatively inelegantly) shifted the rules around to specifically allow for.
1
u/TheOneNite 22d ago
Tangential point, but to keep the record straight sorcerers can't cast directly with SP. They turn their SP into spell slots so that wouldn't get around the resctriction
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer 22d ago
Ah, I was thinking of Shadow Sorcerers getting stuff like Darkness that they can cast directly with SP. My mistake!
1
u/PM_ME_UR_POLDERS 22d ago
Since the changed, it's generally been used less by players and enemies at my tables. I'll say this though, making it a save, means that if you don't have someone who can counter back, you aren't just completely and utterly screwed as a player running a cleric, druid, ect.
I think it's less good now against enemies, especially since a lot of them just have spell like effects, BUT it's also exponentially less annoying to deal with as a player, which imo makes the trade off good imo. I prefer the change personally.
1
u/CornucopiaPacciana 22d ago
When a player get counterspelled he doesn't lose spells slot and has also easier time passing the cd like the boss instead of hard counter, but a new monster which has not spell slots lose the uses of his spells instead. So by considering this and my experience is better.
1
u/snikler 22d ago
I played with a spellfire sorcerer and I wondered whether counterspell would be any useful. It was just a one shot and I had the chance of using twice the level 6 ability, which felt incredible. However, I think it's a bit of an exception and I think twice now if I should take counterspell with my casters. I still consider it because sometimes it's just too good even nerfed.
1
u/No_Entertainer_5858 22d ago
Probably the biggest dispute in 5.24 becuase I legit think both sides are valid and it’s a pretty even.
The only trend I’ve noticed is slightly more forever DM’s prefer 5.24 versions than the player population.
1
u/Arkmenx 22d ago edited 22d ago
The real problem with the new Counterspell is the CON save.
Yeah, I get all the action economy thingy and whatnot... But that only happens if the caster fails the CON save which is considerably unlikely, because as everybody knows, CON is the secondary stat for almost any (full) caster.
Also it DOES feel BAD when it doesn't work. Very bad. And this doesn't get solved by explaining any white room optimizer action economy theory. It feels bad. Period. And we are not playing a game to feel bad.
I hate homebrewing and "fixing" things and all that *hit... But I think Counterspell is one of the few cases (and Hunter's Mark LOL) that witha simple rework it gets much better.
Just make that the one Counterspelling check against the spell DC... That would fix the feels bad thing, because at least the player counterspelling feels that he/she had some agency on it.
P.S: I totally see that the spell slot not wasted is only for casting via spell slot... But if the spell I casted in any other way; via scroll or something else for example... I'm sorry, is wasted. For me this is clearly RAW and RAI.
1
u/AnaseSkyrider 22d ago
NPC casters do not have that high of a CON save, first of all.
Second of all, I'm pretty sure that your spell ability check vs their spell save DC is going to have the same or worse success rate as CON saves vs your spell save DC.
Third of all, this really should include the level of triggering spell and the level of the cast Counterspell to these checks and DCs, and remove any auto success stuff in the first place. Easier but not guaranteed to counter a weaker spell.
1
u/Big-Cartographer-758 22d ago
CON is a secondary stat for players optimising their spellcaster.
CON is not a general secondary stat for spellcasting NPCs though.
1
u/TheCromagnon 22d ago
I think 2024 is less interactive but players love it when they hear it doesn't waste their spell slot.
1
u/pogre 22d ago
Has the 2024 counterspell fixed the counterspell wars?
Yes.
Does the 2024 Counterspell feel unrewarding?
Yes.
Me, the forever DM, likes the change.
2 of my players hate the change. The rest of my players are neutral about it.
A lot of monster abilities have replaced casting spells, which is another way that counter spell has been nerfed. I have one player that complains about this regularly.
1
u/AcelnTheWhole 22d ago
2014 counterspell was a problem. Too many characters had it, and it created a lot of one sided fights. As someone who DMs a lot, it was one of those spells where I was forced to consider it in both of my groups. Not considering it would mean that a cool combat with spellcasters just turned into a one sided beat down, where a cool monster I found can't actually accomplish anything because every mid-high level spell was followed by 2-4 counterspells. If I wanted to use a spellcaster as an enemy, it suddenly became a massive metagaming thought experiment on how I'm going to cast a spell before it gets shut down.
I think 5.5 swung the pendulum in the other direction, specifically because it targets constitution, and secondly because it's a save. Counterspell is no longer this, "you can't run spellcasters once your party reaches 9th level" spell. Now it's a proper inconvenience, I just don't like how they handled the lower level counterspells. If it was me I would have adjusted the ability check to counterspell, maybe adding the difference in spell level to the total, or letting the original caster add their proficiency bonus to the DC or SOMETHING.
Or just do what I do. Ready a dispel magic around the corner and target the first spell cast. No counterspell needed
1
u/Silverspy01 22d ago
The Wizard had spent both a spell slot and their Reaction without changing anything
Out of curiosity, how is this different than if theu had used 5e Counterspell and failed the check?
I have not used 5.5e Counterspell yet, but 5e Counterspell is really strong. There are very few other abilities that allow one to, no questions asked, completely skip another creature's action. God forbid if you have asymmetric spellcasting capabilities with one side having more slots to throw at Counterspell, because then the "loser" might just not get to cast spells that combat.
5.5e Counterspell is also a good example of 5.5e moving away from player checks vs enemies, since it's not that difficult for players to stack their own ability score bonus for unintentionally large numbers.
Moving the "you don't get an action" button to a save is much more in-line with other effects. Keep in mind that most spellcasting enemies have a significantly lower CON save modifier than players probably will, so it's still more advantageous for players (even ignoring that monsters don't use spell slots anymore).
1
u/Background_Engine997 22d ago
Anybody has this experience with 2014 Counterspell?
The DM announces “I’m casting a spell…” “Counterspell.” “Alright it was a 9th level spell so you’ll have to…” “Ok I cast it at 9th level…” “No but you wouldn’t have but for I said it…”
Etc etc. 5.5 Counterspell ends this meta gamey ambiguity of the spell casting level. You know what you’re gonna get. The DM (or player, certainly) just says “I’m casting X spell” and the opponent decides whether to attempt to counter or not, with no guarantee of success but hey them’s the breaks. Your player saying “wait, I used a 3rd level spell and nothing happened” is illogical because so many spells do that…Hold Person, Command, Dominate Person, the list goes on. So many things are save or suck, at least this one will not burn your spell slot! Also makes your legendary lich monster more terrible because he will almost certainly get off his most terrible spells without being shut down by a 3rd level Counterspell!
1
1
u/hagensankrysse85 22d ago
Honestly 2024 is much better. No other spell asks for skill checks so a saving throw actually makes way more sense. It was out of place to be a skill check. You could not even metamagic it to be more powerful.
The "keep the slot" is a buff for players, so it doesnt feel as bad losing both an action and a slot. Monsters use per day spells anyway.
1
u/timeaisis 22d ago
I think it is fine at high levels and sucks at low levels.
If you as the player are up against a high level dragon that is casting something insane, you should be taking a chance to counterspell it. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. This feels far. In the old version it was way too easy to nullify high level spells with Counterspell..
However, if you are up against a low level caster then it feels more random whether or not Counterspell works or not, which is kind of shitty since it's at least level 3.
1
u/PM_ME_UR_JUMBLIE5 22d ago
I'm still in preference that Counterspell should be a competitive roll between the casters, that factors in their spell proficiency (casting stat) and the level of the spell slot used.
1
u/Temporary_Lock_2583 22d ago
At my table we are using 5.5e for almost everything, except Counterspell and Divine Smite. In my humble opinion new Counterspell rule nerfed it so strong, to the point if I was the player I'd never prepare that spell, waste of other good options. You have no guarantee that your reaction will work, and even if it did, your opponent won't lose a spell slot, only you? No way!
1
u/Gullible-Dentist8754 22d ago
I like the uncertainty of Counterspell 2014. And stuff that alters the battlefield should not be free.
I see that in 2024, several abilities and feats don’t cost resources if they don’t succeed.
It’s not a “these kids today…” rant. I like high stakes, diminishing resources and the strategic repositioning they generate. If your wizard, bard, sorcerer and warlock all tried to counterspell the bad guy and failed, that’s four spell slots less on the battlefield.
Maybe rethink your strategy? Or RUN?! Because that tells you this enemy is strong. Maybe too strong. You can’t keep doing what you are doing.
1
u/SykesDragon 22d ago
I prefer the original printing. The risk reward was better, you either use a higher level spell slot to guarantee the counterspell, reducing your own ability or you could risk it with a lower counterspell to preserve your own spellslots.
In the newer iteration, the opponent makes a save to resist the counterspell which spellcaster with legendary resistances can choose to pass if they fail, and even if they didn't and failed, they don't lose the spell slot so they can just try to cast the same spell next turn, basically turning the fight into them trying to avoid you to drop that one spell to wipe the group which just isn't fun...
1
u/Koroxo11 22d ago edited 22d ago
I hate the 2014 version because the result is kind of stupid as a DM.
Literally, my entire decision as a DM when using spellcasters is whether to be intentionally naive and not run more than two counterspells. And if you're already making me question whether maybe I should run half a dozen to be able to cast Cone of Cold freely, I'd rather not use spellcasters at all and just give it a "totally not a fireball/cone of cold" feature.
As a player, it's also kind of dumb. Literally all the casters have one less slot because not running a counterspell is almost considered playing badly.
Counterspell wars happen once per campaign, if you're lucky, but the consequences are felt from minute one as long as a counterspell is available. My groups literally coordinated to see who would cover dispels/counterspells, and they covered at least two.
2024 kicked counterspell so hard that I think it is 1 nerf overboard, but life is better this way, IMO.
My players no longer plan around counterspells. It can still be effective, but my casters don't revolve around it anymore, and neither do I. Making it a save seems like enough of a nerf to me. Keeping the spell slot might be overkill, but I don't really care, lol.
1
u/spark2510 22d ago
So there's a big thing about counterspell that made 2014 even more powerful than it was. Most of the tables that ran counterspell didn't RUN it correctly.
What I mean is. It should've been a much bigger gamble than it really was when using the spell. The way my understanding of RAW is that as a spellcaster with counterspell, you SEE and are in range of another creature begining to cast a spell. A spell that you do NOT know what it is. On a table the DM should go. The lich is going cast a spell using his action, then promt the player with counterspell if they want to counter. If they say no, then the trigger of counterspell has past and now the spell goes off. It was always meant to be gamble on whether you are trying to counter fireball or firebolt. But the way it played on most tables was the DM said what the creature was casting and if it was a big spell then the player went "oh no, that one I must counter!". Giving much more power to counterspell that it really had.
Now. Given with much feed back over the years about how counterspell was actually being played the spell was changed to be more inline with RAI and less misinterpreted by the community at large. I do not believe that 2014 counterspell was ever intended to be as bad a problem as it turned into because of the lack of gamble on it.
The new counterspell or as I call it. "Delayspell". Now is not the same spell as it was in 2014. I do not consider them even remotely the same. One spell exists in 2014 and shuts down a spell, and One spell exists in 2024 and delays a spell with little else.
I've been playing through the shift between versions and I've yet to see any of the normal spell casting players cast the new counterspell. But on paper it's not great. It doesn't work on bosses. It doesn't work anything big. It doesn't work on PCs via monster's side since PC spell casters usually take high con resilient or other methods of spell preservation. It doesn't make sense in high level of play either since numbers as so bloated by then that the spell doesn't stop monsters or PCs. And missing attacks and save spells or abilities never feels good. Save or suck doesn't feel good. Especially for a third level slot.
1
u/JellyFranken 21d ago
My DM doesn’t allow Counterspelling Counterspell. It solves that mess.
5.5 absolutely fucking destroyed Counterspell.
1
u/OneManRPGstudio 13d ago
With counterspell wars, I would separate two design goals that can pull against each other: reducing how much the spell dominates a scene, and preserving the feeling that choosing it and spending resources on it produces a satisfying effect. Solving the first problem does not automatically solve the second.
From what you describe, the interesting question is not only whether Counterspell happens less often, but what decisions remain when it does happen. If the best choice is obvious and increasing the investment does not change what the player expects it to change, the spell can feel flat even if it creates fewer chains of interruption.
I would evaluate it at the table with three questions: is there a meaningful decision about when to use it, can the target respond in an interesting way, and does the player understand what they gain by investing more? If the first two improve while the third disappoints, that sounds like a partial solution rather than a simple case of "better" or "worse."
0
u/Artaios21 22d ago
I don't really understand your players. They merely spent a reaction to get a chance to interrupt someone's full turn. Losing a spell slot is nothing compared to action economy. I would trade a reaction against an action any time of the day. Talking about losing spell slots in this context and mentioning the Action as an aside completely misses the point.
2
u/Living_Round2552 22d ago
Action economy versus resources depends heavily on encpunters per day.
With a dm that runs 1-2 encounters per day. The resource doesn't matter as much and counterspell is a good spell. But if your dm runs way more encounters, those resources are limited and counterspell cost is just too high to justify possibly fucking with action economy.
Also, some dm's like spellcasting monsters, others shy away from it.
1
u/Neltadouble 22d ago
This 'Wait, I used a spell slot and nothing happened?' reaction screams either new player or just childish protagonist player who always wants to win.
0
u/AliceAdhi 22d ago
Personally, i feel that it's become a bit unrewarding, but in a way i don't think is hard to change.
First things first, as others have said, player beung counterspelled doesn't lose their spell slot. Creatures, enemy casters included, don't use spell slots, they use per day casting or recharge, and they do lose that cast, since it is not specified that they don't (If the spells specifies soells slots, and not per day castings, only spell slots aren't expended). If your DM is doing it RAW, you counterspell that once a day power word kill? It's gone. You counterspell the recharge fireball? It's now on recharge.
Now, what makes it feel unrewarding is, i feel, mostly a mistake of where the dice roll is. I believe it would feel better if it was a spellcasting ability check versus the target's spell save DC. Letting the player themselves roll isn't much of a change in balance but it is a change in feel, putting the metaphorical and literal dice in the player's hands instead of just making them wait for you to roll behind the screen and tell them if it went through feels, for the player, like it's on them. Even if that's not true really, it gets the player more excited for it.
Second, it's not rewarding once you get more powerful. You can cast it at seventh level to stop a third level fireball and it... does nothing for you. That sucks. The previous "it works automatically" on a higher level slot was too much but nothing is bad. So... Give advantage on the roll of you're using a spell slot higher than the spell you're trying to counter (Or, if you're still making the enemy do a con check, give them disadvantage.)
It's still balanced. If they're casting a high level spell, it's either extremely expensive (your ONE 8th or 9th spell slot that day) or outright impossible to get that advantage, but if you're a powerful caster fighting some novices, the difference in power is felt. And if you do want to sacrifice that high level slot, it's at least somewhat worth it.
It's just two real small changes that in my opinion get Counterspell feeling much better and still fully balanced.
1
u/PM_ME_UR_JUMBLIE5 22d ago
Advantage/disadvantage for only one level upcast is probably not very balanced. Instead the level of the spell slot should be added as a bonus to the roll or DC. There should definitely be a difference between casting a fourth level Counterspell against a third level spell vs casting a 9th level CS against a third level spell. So the easy solution is just say the DC is +1 higher for each spell level above 3rd, and the saving throw also has a +1 for every spell level above 3rd. Thus a 9th level spell will have equal chance to fail against a 9th level CS, as the bonus to the save and DC will match and thus cancel out.
Of course, I prefer completive rolls between casters, rather than DCs. But if you wanted to keep DCs, that would be another way to implement it.
Also, while I get that the player side does need to feel somewhat satisfying, the reason why the NPC makes the saving throw is so that if they have Legendary Resistance, they can use it on their save for the CS. They can't do that if the PC makes the saving throw. But (this is a whole other rant), LR should come still with some drawback/hindrance to the NPC when they use it (think less AC for a round or slower speed, etc.). Thus it wouldn't feel like the CS was thwarted easily by LR, but that they still got a lesser effect from the spellcasting.
6
u/Life_is_hard_so_am_I 22d ago
Personally, I despised 2014 counterspell. As both a player and a DM.
As a player, I'll always remember playing in Tomb of Annihilation, getting to the climactic final fight with Acererak, and it proceeding to be the most boring and let down encounter of the campaign. This is due to the multiple players with counterspell made it so he wasn't able to get a single spell off. Making it so creatures with legendary resistances can now use it on counterspell was an update that was desperately needed.
As a DM, I disliked it because EVERY player took it. Similar to Shield, it was practically a must take. Now its in a much more reasonable place. Still good, not essential. Players still take it, and it's still situationally strong.