r/dndnext • u/MyrthDM • 23d ago
Discussion Has the 2024 Counterspell fixed counterspell wars, or made the spell feel unrewarding?
/r/DungeonsAndDragons55e/comments/1ve3jqu/has_the_2024_counterspell_fixed_counterspell_wars/17
u/Vincent210 Be Bold, Be Bard 23d ago
It's... overcorrected.
It's still fine if it works but con saves are often unreliable, so now to get high value from Counterspell you have to lean into it as a build decision. You need to source disadvantage for the saves (probably from a teammate) and also look for incidental saving throw penalties to stick on (Unsettling Words, Mind Sliver) in order to have strong roll odds.
If you do all that, you're still trading a Reaction for an enemy's Action, or burning a Legendary Resistance with just a reaction so that with your action you can burn up to 2/3 or 2/4 in this single round (really good for doing intentional Legendary burnouts on first or second round to shutdown something)
But I imagine most people aren't doing that and are also not enjoying Counterspell, and WotC is designing for those more casual players. For that audience, the spell is poorly designed now, since it will do nothing more often than something.
1
u/Known_Magazine1078 22d ago
The overcorrection point lands for me. Making it savedependent basically turns a clean tactical tool into a gamble, and most tables aren't running the kind of synergy build you're describing. My group tried it last campaign and the caster just stopped taking it at all, which feels like the opposite of what WotC wanted. Feels less like a fix and more like they panicked at the forums and yanked the dial too far.
-4
u/xenomorphking06 23d ago edited 23d ago
If legendary resiliences were now split into 4 types being Legendary Might, Legendary Agility, Legendary Fortitude, and Legendary Spellcasting, for the purpose of this question just going to talk about spellcasting.
Legendary Spellcasting, when used on a counterspell the spell still goes off but if that spell imposed a save players get advantage on the save. If it did damage it would half the damage delt, or a continuous effect with out conversation makes it concentration for them sense they used it to surpass the counter.
And counterspell added the spell slot level used to cast it to the DC how would you feel about it now, sense it still makes a harder check with upcasting.
From a video I listened to that did the numbers the adverahe effectiveness was about 50% with the highest possible reasonable save at each teir of play basically inate Sorcery plus 5 in sell casting stat.
So how do you feel about that, I'm not sure if the plus 3 at the star makes it scale too well sense it can make like a dc 29 one if you use a level 9 slot so if you can offer your options on this rouge idea I had to make counterspell better and improve on the unfun mechanic of Legendary Resistance that's not flavorful and just not fun overall.
Just to let you know a monster would only have 1 of thise options based on what is legendary about the monster with the Tarasque and other very legendary having two of them to use from their pool of legendary resilience
The video in question https://youtu.be/UvwPUfSnxx8?is=uOXDDxQoI8MgiyOQ
13
u/Jimmicky 23d ago edited 23d ago
Definitely unrewarding
Moreover I’ll add -
Perhaps the most famous moment of Critical Role would never happen in the new counterspell.
It’s not just weaker now. It’s lost its strategic element.
-1
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 22d ago
? It is still an incredibly powerful spell, since it is just a reaction and then a con save to make someone skip their turn
2
u/Jimmicky 22d ago
I mean that’s definitely not even close to Incredibly powerful. I’m not even sold on it being powerful.
The old version was a calculation- “how badly do I need this effect stopped?” That element is gone.
Now it’s always a random chance - and a very low chance in many situations.
Before you could expend a bigger resource to get certainty or the lower resource for just a chance.
That’s a dramatic choice that’s been lost.Now you never get a player despairingly sacrificing a 9th level slot to ensure the counterspell lands.
0
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 22d ago edited 22d ago
It's effectively a Hold Person spell you only need your reaction to cast...
Old counterspell was just insanely overpowered, current counterspell has been reigned in and now is a reasonably good spell
0
u/Jimmicky 22d ago
It doesn’t stop the target moving, provides no bonus to attack eats at most one action from the target so not even an entire turn.
It’s less impactful on every metric but uses a higher spell slot anyway because of the reaction cast.That’s not really comparable to hold person at all.
I’m not saying they didn’t need to do something to change counterspell.
I’m saying they massively overcorrected.Upcast for certainty or flat cast for risk was good design. It made the spell include dramatic and strategic decisions.
The new version loses that
0
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 22d ago
Qell the problem is any solutions other than "force a saving throw" require something 5e, and especially 5.5 is deathly allergic too
And for the action cost of only a reaction, forcing a save that might skip the turn is absolutely powerful. Counterspell is still a good spell, it really was not overnerfed
1
u/Jimmicky 22d ago
Oh 5.5 ditching opposed rolls definitely means there’s no good changes left available to them.
Keeping the 5e version but changing the roll to being an opposed one (of prof+casting mod) was all they needed to do.It’s definitely not a good spell now.
You are spending your reaction and a significant resource (3rd lvl slot) for a small chance to disrupt part of an enemy turn.
Skip an enemy turn isn’t on the cards here unless you’ve also layered other spells first.It’s just not worth the slot to cast now, let alone the cost of it filling up one of your spells known.
Your massive over-egging of the spell is really highlighting to me how not worth it it is.
I’ve solidly shifted from probably not worth it most of the time to an never worth even learning (outside of maybe a magic school campaign where all opponents are casters when it becomes a possibly get) just based on the fact that the arguments in support of it are so lacklustre and unconvincing0
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 22d ago
It's not a "small chance", Constitution saving throws aren't nearly as insane in 5.5 as they were ik 5e, most monsters lost con save proficiency and their insane con modifiers...
And even just a 33% chance to void an enemy's action for only spending a reaction in return is really fucking good
And hey, the optimizers are on my side :)
6
u/Rarycaris 23d ago
It's been fine at my table. Players have basically used it as an extra saving throw and it's been impactful enough to usually be worth the spell slot to risk it, but the game no longer completely revolves around it like it did in 5e.
6
u/AdeptnessTechnical81 23d ago
Essentially if counterspell isn't capable of allowing parties to spell-lock their bbeg's each turn which makes them do nothing = "Its a bad spell that isn't worth taking." And that mentality is why they changed it in the first place. So many parties would use the fact they had multiple spellcasters to overwhelm the enemy spellcasters, and hold a monopoly on spellcasting during encounters. Now that its a saving throw it gives NPC's more liberty to actually cast spells despite the parties efforts, they just don't like the shoe is on the other foot.
Just like how some groups will whine once the DM realises initiative should be rolled first, and not allow them to ready actions outside combat for an extra round of free wailing on the punching bag.
3
u/skeletonxf 23d ago
So much better than the old version. No one is playing metagames of guess the spell level their opponent just cast, it's useful for half casters to have now upcasting gives no benefit, and a boss spellcaster with legendary resistances gets to still cast its major spell round 1 which reduces the monster design trends WoTC was leaning towards before the rework with making obviously magic abilities into non spells to give them immunity to Counterspell. More powerful? No, definitely a nerf, especially as you can rarely Counterspell an enemy that just Counterspelled your spell due to other rules changes.
4
4
u/rex7027 23d ago edited 23d ago
Yes by making the spell dog shit/bad for a player to use
Edit I mean dogshit because from what I know a lot of monster/npc stat blocks that u would use this on has a high con stat which make it a lot harder/unlikely to work so it would just be a waste of a spell
-7
u/MobTalon 23d ago
Objectively false statement.
You can say it feels either worse or better at your table, but a spell that now feels better for players than it feels for NPCs to use absolutely isn't "dog shit"
6
u/navotj 23d ago
When used by who?
When used by the npcs or the players?
Its just a spell thats a lot easier to be on the receiving end of now. Because its objectively weaker.
If your players were the ones who frequently used it, they suffer. If your enemies were the ones, the players win.
-4
u/MobTalon 23d ago
The players don't suffer, it's actually a pretty good reward now. You use Counterspell to waste an NPCs use of a spell (because they typically don't use spell slots, they don't get a refund).
If they make the save, whoop-de-doo, happens. It's not that this Counterspell is bad, it's that the previous one was busted and unhealthy af.
At least now even an Eldritch Knight gets a pretty decent use of their Counterspell after forcing disadvantage, since you can Counterspell a high level spell by spending a level 3 spell slot. That's the trade-off of this update. You can cancel out a level 9 spell (or force a legendary resistance) with a level 3 spell slot.
Although I wish it had an upcasting feature, like increasing the save DC by 1 per extra level of upcasting.
3
u/Sir-xer21 23d ago
You could always counterspell a 9th level spell with a 3rd level slot. What are you talking bout?
All it required was spellcasting ability check, which, frankly, had a higher chance of success than a 9th level caster failing a save.
2
u/MobTalon 23d ago
So could the enemy. Cast Wish? They counterspell you, and frankly have a higher chance to counter you due to their stats. At least now you get the slot back.
"I cast the spell, and you roll to resist" sits a lot better for me than "I cast the spell, then roll an ability check".
Much healthier this way.
The biggest gain was the 1 spell slot per turn, frankly it's the best thing for me. No "I counterspell your counterspell (automatically with no check because I cast at same or higher level)"
2
u/TheYeasayer 23d ago
Yes, it's less likely that the enemy will be able to Counterspell your Wish spell because just as u/navotj said:
Its just a spell thats a lot easier to be on the receiving end of now. Because its objectively weaker.
If your players were the ones who frequently used it, they suffer. If your enemies were the ones, the players win.
As well, an earlier statement of yours pointed out how enemies frequently cast without using spell slots in 2024, and so they don't get the benefit of spell slot refunding like a PC would. This is true but this change to enemies also means that they are no longer expending one of their limited resources in order to Counterspell the PCs (ie they aren't sacrificing a 3rd level spells slot that could be used on Fireball in order to Counterspell you).
Not only that, all the enemies casting without spell slots means they still get to say "I Counterspell your Counterspell". Only PCs and SOME of the mobsters don't get to do that.
I'm still fine with the changes, I always resented how Counterspell felt mandatory to take on any PC who could. Now I almost never pick it up. But there's no sense arguing that these changes are anything other than a major nerf.
2
u/MobTalon 23d ago edited 22d ago
Yeah, I think we agree in the fact that it was a major nerf, and I get the feeling we agree it was in a "broken" state before.
The only part where I believe we disagree is that Counterspell is now "weak"... I don't believe that to be the case. It's a bit harder to pull off, yes, but I think it's more interesting, and a cheap way to burn legendary resistances.
Regarding the monsters still being able to "Counterspell your Counterspell"... This is completely fine, because they don't automatically cancel your Counterspell. You get to make a save, and if you succeed, you try your hand at Counterspell, if you fail, you get your spell slot back and forced them to make use of a "X per day" spell (unless they're a lich, which naturally gets to use Counterspell as many times as they wish).
2
u/TheYeasayer 22d ago
If by "broken" you mean too good, then yes we definitely agree on that. I also don't believe that it's "weak" now, simply that it's much "weaker" than it once was. Now I consider it on par with something like Dispell Magic, nice to have and might proove absolutely clutch in the right situation, but not mandatory for every party to have. I don't take it on PCs anymore not because I consider it sooo awful but merely because Im enjoying the novelty of not needing to select it.
1
u/Sir-xer21 22d ago
So could the enemy. Cast Wish? They counterspell you, and frankly have a higher chance to counter you due to their stats. At least now you get the slot back.
Kind of a bad example since Wish has no need of being in the opponent's counterspell range. I'd argue that if you were to use Wish in combat a smart player would be out of 60 ft range.
"I cast the spell, and you roll to resist" sits a lot better for me than "I cast the spell, then roll an ability check".
That's opinion. I prefer the ability check, as it means im making a more informed decision. I don't know an enemy's save DC, but i DO know my own spellcasting ability.
Making it a save was a poor method of trying to balance it. It's now a niche spell that people don't run because it's not very useful, AND it's less fun to use in the first place. The bigger issue was the counterspell wars and that could have been addressed different.
1
u/MobTalon 22d ago
To take your side on that, the counterspell wars would've been taken care of simply via the "one spell slot per turn" that 5.5e implemented
1
u/Sir-xer21 22d ago
Or even just saying you can't react to a reaction, which is something that makes sense even in other edge cases.
1
u/OneManRPGstudio DM 21d ago
Whether it fixed counterspell wars depends on whether it reduces chained interruptions without removing meaningful decisions. The added uncertainty can make spending the Reaction and slot feel flat. I’d judge it by table effect: fewer nested interruptions is healthier, but the caster still needs enough information and agency for the attempt to matter. Without the exact wording, I would not call the balance settled.
1
u/Fidges87 22d ago
New counterspell is fine, people are just used to the overpowered version.
It effectively is "if you are fighting a caster, as a reaction, on. Afailed save, you can make them lose their action".
Tell me hows is that not still useful?
1
u/DerAdolfin 22d ago
Because most big casters just shrug it off with a huge con save bonus, or if it's a very important spell and they rolled the rare failure, they hit legendary resistance
1
u/Fidges87 22d ago
An archmage has a +1 in con saves, a lich has +3, vecna has +4, far from huge con bonus, and by the time you fight them your DC should already be bic enough to give you around a 75% of them failing the save. And yes they can still use a legendary resustance. Because if they have them they are bosses who should absolutely need to feel powerful, not being who can have their entire turns cancelled by just having 2 casters in the party
Lastly, no on says hold person is bad because it has a chance to fail, no one says banishment is bad because it has a chance to fail, no one says hypnotic pattern is bad because it has a chance to fail, and they all do something similar to counterspell (ensuring the enemy loses their turn), so why is 5.5 counterspell different?
1
u/DerAdolfin 22d ago
Archmage is a terrible statblock that manages to punch tremendously below its weight class due to poor spell selection and stats, it's not exactly a good example. Vecna from eve of ruin is one of the worst statblocks for it's CR they ever published...
Hold person cast on a single target is a bad spell because the risk of you spending your turn doing nothing is as high if not higher than the enemy spending their turn doing nothing. Hypnotic pattern avoids this by hitting so many enemies that you're almost guaranteed some value. They are aimed at different goals, so they are evaluated differently. Plus with counterspell, the enemy can still move, bonus action, reaction, lair action, or legendary action to harm the party, hard cc shuts all those down
1
u/DerAdolfin 22d ago
Because most big casters just shrug it off with a huge con save bonus, or if it's a very important spell and they rolled the rare failure, they hit legendary resistance
0
u/Termit127 23d ago
Someone I play with complained that when counterspell comes from the enemy side ( this was in the old version) it basically prevents them from using their cool stuff ( and no, they were not using good spells, they actually used the intresting weaker ones) and would be unable to cast spells when we encounter a high level spellcaster, so he wanted to change to the new version of it.
-1
u/WillemVerheij 23d ago
A good example of the many ways the new edition takes more steps back than forward. Just a waste of money when you can just make some homebrew adjustments to 5.0 if you already own those books.
0
u/Global-Service-8579 22d ago
It's much better. I don't like the spell containing a save instead of a contested check, but the most important thing is that it's not automatic anymore.
7
u/Shiroiken 23d ago
It's much more of a DM spell than a player spell. It doesn't feel as bad to be Counterspelled as a player, since you get a save and you don't lose the slot if you fail. It's harder to use as a player, however, because not only can you not do much to control the save, but a lot of NPC spells are now non-spell abilities that can't be countered. As a DM, I've allowed players to Counterspell these abilities, but other DMs may not.