Making Fun of Magic (part 3)

This is part 3 of my series where I explore magic in Dungeons & Dragons 5e that manages to be everything but magical. You can read the first and second posts here and here. Today's entry is going to be focused on, in my opinion, the most egregious of the bunch: Counterspell.

Although this specific post, well this whole series, really, was more or less inspired by this Martin O post over at Goodberry Monthly, I've had a bone to pick with the Counterspell spell for quite some time now, at least in the way it's presented in 5e. 

The Problem

What's always bothered me about Counterspell is that it's the most direct form of no-fun, flat-out DENIAL in 5e. An oft repeated DM tip and a staple of improv performance is the idea of "Yes and...", wherein whatever comes up you refrain from saying "No" or denying someone else's input. Instead you find a way to take their input, and either improve upon it, keep it going, or change its direction. I like to frame it as a creative and indirect way of saying No. This spell is the complete antithesis of that concept. 

If you've ever played something like Magic: The Gathering, Counterspell is a great tool both mechanically and mentally, as it shuts down whatever the other player is trying to do as well as deters them from trying to cast other spells. It triggers a mind game of having to keep a tally of both yours and the opponent’s resources, as well as trying to guess if they're holding onto another Counterspell, or stacking your spells in a way to mitigate getting shut down again. 

In 5e however, it shuts down whatever the DM or player is wanting to do and deters them from casting more spells. And triggers a mini game of having to keep track of spell slots or guessing if the DM is going to add a "Legendary Action" on the fly, or players using meta-knowledge and stacking spells in a certain order to mitigate getting shut down again. For some people that's fine, but for me, that's not the game I want to play. I want to see things blow up in a plume of rainbow-smoke and lightning.

Therein lies the underlying problem with, not just Counterspell, but probably most of the spells I've written about in this series. They don't serve to make the game more interesting, or more fun, or even as tools for lateral thinking and creative problem solving. They shift the focus away from the magical and fantastical, from the mystifying and otherworldly, from a set of figurative arcane tools for dangerously magical problems.....shifts the focus away from all of that to a game of calculating spell slots vs. long rests. The Risk v. Reward paradigm shifts from figuring out if it's worth it to delve deeper into the Lich's Infinite Tomb of Immeasurable Wealth for more treasure to tallying how many spell slots I have left, and how many I'll need for the guaranteed 3-4 encounters I have coming up before the next boss fight. 

Some Inspiration

Some of my favorite takes on the concept of Counterspelling come from Dungeon World and Dungeon Crawl Classics (both are great games in their own right and are definitely worth checking out). 

In Dungeon World, Counterspell is very simple, effective, and has a more flavorful function to it than its 5e counterpart. When a spell is cast targeting you, you "wager" one of your own spells and roll+INT (for this game, rolls are 2d6 + your modifier). On a 10+, the spell is countered and has no effect on you. On a 7-9, the spell is countered, and you lose the spell you wagered. (On a 6-, that's a fail and comes with a bevy of possible negative outcomes up to the GM's discretion). The caveat is that if the spell has multiple targets, you can only negate its effect on you. 

It's simple (maybe a bit too simple for my taste), but at least it carries with it an inherent risk vs. reward, as well as not quite just shutting down one side of the equation. Just that little bit of dynamism does wonders in making for a more exciting interaction. 

In Dungeon Crawl Classics however, as far as complexity goes, it runs in the complete opposite direction. Called Spell Duels, it involves a slew of random tables, a little mini-game that suspends normal combat initiative order, a lot of wagering, momentum die, crazy spell effects, etc. that all builds up to an explosion of eldritch energy that may or may not rip open the fabric of reality itself (you know, the way magic should). Although a bit clunky, and even more crunchy as far as the number of calculations and rolls that are involved, it does a great job of evoking powerful imagery of classic wizard duels. Think Dumbledore vs. Voldemort, or Gandalf vs. Saruman (geriatric breakdancing, and all). 

What Would I Do? 

In my own super-secret 5e-hack/fantasy heartbreaker codenamed Extant Crusade, I rip out Counterspell wholesale, chop it up, Frankenstein it back together, and jam it in as a class feature for Wizards and Sorcerers, with Warlocks and Clerics getting a bastardized version of it. That might be a bit extreme for some, so how about we dial it back, take some direction from the above examples, and meet somewhere in the middle like well-adjusted adults? 

Counterspell 

You attempt to counter a spell being cast by a creature you can see and hear. Make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level, unless the caster attempts to resist. If the caster is attempting to resist the Counterspell, you can spend another spell slot to add a bonus to your ability check equal to the level of the spell slot added and make a contested Arcana check with the caster. If you win, the spell is countered and takes no effect. 

Resisting a Counterspell: You can use your reaction to resist being counterspelled. Make a contested Arcana check. You can spend another spell slot to add a bonus to your roll. If you win, the original spell takes effect as normal. 

In the event of a tie, the casters of both spells are locked in an arcane duel. They cannot take any actions for the next round. At the beginning of next turn, whoever comes up first, they both repeat the contested roll. If either party loses concentration between rolls, they immediately lose the duel. 

On a 1, roll on the Counterspell Failure table. On a 20, roll on the Counterspell Success table. (Those table names suck, I know, I'm working on some better ones). 

Breaking it Down

This version removes the "auto-success" on lower level spells. While I love magic spells that just do the thing they're supposed to do, I hate the idea of things that auto-hit or auto-succeed (Magic Missile is a special case for me). This makes every use of Counterspell an event. The higher level you are, or the more you're willing to risk, the better your Counterspells get. 

Another thing it does is give the magic-user being counterspelled a fighting chance. Going back to shutting down a player for trying something (which I think we can all agree is probably one of the more egregious things that can happen at a game table), this gives them a tool to push back if they want to. Obviously, same goes for the DM and whatever Evil Wizard™ they're trying to kill the players with. Double-edged swords and all that jazz.

This also takes place of responding to Counterspell with Counterspell, which often devolves into this Magic: The Gathering style 'Stack' manipulation. In that moment, the players are no longer playing the plucky young adventurers taking on Xalfor the Demi-God of Half-Truths and Malicious Compliance, they're again playing Spell Slots & Character Sheets. 

In the end, it's something to tinker with that may or may not spice things up or break things down. As far as balance is concerned, I'll be honest, I haven't given it much thought. As I get older and run more games, I'm finding balance something that gets moved further and further down the priority list when it comes to tabletop RPGs. I might have to write a post about that someday to be honest. 

I'm planning on a follow-up to this post, so don't fret. I've got to make some tables  to flesh out this concept, and maybe a little more tweaking. For now, I'd definitely use the tables laid out in the post I mentioned up above. Let me know what you think.