The biggest reason I have been paying attention to your writings (and then videos) about D&D for most of 20 years is the balanced way in which you approach optimizing. Sure, you look for the best combinations of traits and features to optmize a character to be the best that it can be, but you don't lose sight of the good of the game. This is just another example and I greatly appreciate you using your bully pulpit to make this case. I was already planning to be "very satisfied" with both these options--just as I was with the earlier modifications to Paladin smites and the Warlock class--but I am also going to share this specific video far and wide because Counterspell (which we love when we use it against "monsters" and hate when it is used against us) is the top of my personal list of broken spells.
Another reason I don't mind new Twinned is because Crawford promised that a lot of spells previously not upcastable are now upcastable, including several that target more creatures. Imagine Hideous Laughter targeting more creatures at higher levels!
I don't mind the new Twinned Spell. I like it way more than the last UA one and it's a good compromise, especially with them updating some spells to have upcasting that benefits from it.
I also think the new twinned spell is good! It accualy makes some of the enchantment spells cheaper to cast and is in par with the 10th level feature of the Enchantment Wizards Split Enchantment! Enchantment Wizards were better at "twinning" enchantment spells before! but sorcerers got to do it at earlier levels and now with a lower point cost! Love it! I did miss read it at first and thought it was no limit to the number of point that could be spent! and I do agree with TreantMonk about what was said about Counterspell in the video! I think that the monks stunning strike, targeting Con saves have dilluted the views on some effects targeting Con saves! But the Monks are trying kinda the same thing! delay a character! but they are also giving advantage on attacks to the other party members and/or the rest of the monks attacks! Now they just need to unscrew the monk and make it playable again! (fingerscrossed for a good monk UA)
That first try was so different and out of flavor with "twinning" that I wouldn't mind seeing it pop up again as a separate renamed metamagic alongside this version of Twinned Spell. I could see it applying to someone wanting to pick and gamble on a target still being around a turn later if they're already in the mind to gamble, such as those playing with the Wild Magic subclass. Also, love Twinned Spell just being "A" metamagic option instead of "THE" metamagic option, with the other options made to be on-par with each other in usability.
By the way, this nerf DOES buff somewhat the Warlock Experience (TM). I have BEEN the Warlock whose two spell slots were both tanked by the enemy mage's Counterspell, and it SUCKED. I also like how it also indirectly buffs Dispel Magic, because the original version was basically "Counterspell that lets their friends get hurt first." There's just a lot of positive game experience improvements with changing just a single spell.
But Warlock upcasts to their slot level. In my campaign, I don’t think the Warlock has failed to counterspell once; and it’s happened at least 15 times.
What a dick of a dungeon master to do this twice to the warlock in one encounter.. were there no other casters? To target? And also on what horrendous power trip must a dm be to deny all your limited spellslots specifically . I would search another group if I were u.
@@blubblubwhat no, it’s pretty great. It means I used my character’s abilities to shutdown an enemy. What more could I ask for against a high CR monster?
@@blubblubwhat you don't want a DM to use an ability against a PC? Lmao, yeah it happens a lot actually. It's REALLY easy to blow through warlock slots
I wanted to address 2 comments that are coming up 1: Does a monster lose their X/Day "spell slot" when they are counterspelled since technically it's not a slot? My assumption is no, but that should be clarified (Edit, JC was pretty clear in the video that indeed if the resource isn't a spell slot it is lost, so my assumption was wrong.) 2: Counterspell makes Constitution saving throws more important for casters. This is true, though Constitution saving throws have always been very important to casters because of concentration saving throws.
th-cam.com/video/CQxFfFGtdxw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Ll56DRQZNgBCuFU6 At 1:24:52 Crawford says that the spell slot is not expended at a successful counter but clarifies that if they were using some other resource then those resources are expended. Which might actually make countering monsters still work? At least if they follow through on their current redesign, where even the humanoid class-inspired NPCs have per day uses instead of spell slots? I don't like that as a player, I want it to be just as scary to be counterspelled as it is to counterspell
I have serious concerns about making a game via committee, which is what is happening with the playtest. Channels like yours, were you are trying to do good sound more and more like political pundits. It's not too much of a problem now, but I can really see weird arguments taking the community and splitting us apart.
Having in mind how it is worded and how crawford talked about counterspell in the last playtest video, I would argue it is meant to actually spend those "1/day" spells, which would be a good design for the players to screw monster's spells but not the other way around
@@aidandunne5978 Some have categorized it as pity prize for caster players having a vastly inferior constitution score than monster casters and even humanoid casters having a higher constitution than a player of equivalent level would have.
Another option, Upcast a spell AND add twinspell on top to have the simulated effect of upcasting by 2 levels. I'm gonna miss the double concentration utility, but this is still a reasonable option in a sorcerer's toolkit.
The doubling of concentration spells was the biggest abuse of Twinned Spell IMO. The playtest version does a great job of taming the most OP applications of the feature while still making it a solid option to choose.
@@thomashull7776 As most of the concentration spells you'd want/have to twin for great gains are high level it does burn the sorc out of points in 2014 rules, and they still have to maintain that concentration after painting that target on their back. Its damn powerful, but I'd not call it any more broken than heaps of other 5E options... This new version seems like it might actually be rather too cheap to twin high level spells, in effect giving the sorc heaps of the highest level spell slots as they 'upcast' for almost no sorc point cost.
@darkarchonisme can wizards make their enemies have disadvantage on ALL their hold person/monster (and other continuous saving throws spells) saying throws? NO. Can wizards make their allies within their Fireball radius (or any other radius spell with saving throw) not take damage AT ALL? NO. Can wizards increase their spell DC and attack modifier with just a bonus action for a entire fight twice? NO. Does wizards have the unbelievably BROKEN spell Arcane Eruption? NO. Can wizards cast action spells with a bonus action? NO. I could go on for so much more, that was not even half the metamagic options, what you're saying is just objectively wrong, the ONLY THING wizards have on top of sorcerers is a better spell list and more spells known/prepared, that's it.
I had my reservations over the revision to Twinned Spell at first, but after I heard that it was planned for more spells to be upcast to target more creatures, I think it’s a lot more engaging Metamagic option, though I think I still prefer the new Careful, Extended or Heightened spell.
Also people are discounting the fact you can still limit break with this version of twin spell, Just not with spells that it was never intended to work with.
That first try was so different and out of flavor with "twinning" that I wouldn't mind seeing it pop up again as a separate renamed metamagic alongside this version of Twinned Spell. I could see it applying to someone wanting to pick and gamble on a target still being around a turn later if they're already in the mind to gamble, such as those playing with the Wild Magic subclass. Edit: whoops, replied to the wrong comment. Anyway, love Twinned Spell just being "A" metamagic option instead of "THE" metamagic option.
I don't necessarily mind the new Twinned Spell, but it seems a shame that it no longer allows sorcerers to do something truly unique. It is now something that any spellcasting class could do provided they have that higher level spell slot.
I would say that when I use Psychic lance, the main reason is not to delay spell casting, although that's not bad for sure, but to disrupt concentration, given it provides two saves (one for maintaining it from the damage and one from avoiding incapacitation) where if you fail either you lose your concentration. That's really good! Counterspell does not provide that at all, so I do still think it's a little weaker than I would like it, but I do agree it did need change, I just think this version might end up being a little weak.
I agree that maybe it should be downleveled one to a second level spell but I like this new version. It is more of a choice than a must have now. If you are in a campaign where you are fighting many spellcasters that won't have legendary saves its good and if not than maybe don't take it. Even if they do have legendary saves you can eat them with this spell. As A DM I like that my legendary spellcaster doesn't get insta-gibbed because a player has counterspell.
This Counterspell is still good to take, but now leaning towards one of those spells you don't pick as soon as you reach that slot level. Once you reach 4th or 5th level slots, it's must take again because having the option is worth it even if not a focus of your playstyle for that character. And Abjurers will still lean on it in to keep their Arcane Ward healthy. And Sorcerers in general can make the save pretty tough to succeed in clutch situations without special build focus between just Innate Sorcery and Heightened Spell.
I think Wizards can easily clarify the Misty Step issue encountered at 21:00 by rewording that section to say "If a character used a Magic Action to cast a leveled spell." You no longer have to scratch your head and wonder if the new Counter Spell would work, even if the spell slot wasn't expended. Since casting a spell is a type of action, utilize the action type to reduce confusion.
The bonus action misty step wouldn't work. According to the rules when you cast a spell as a bonus action "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." You have to cast a spell before it could be counterspelled. By Treantmonks logic you could cast a leveled spell as a bonus action, then cast two spells warlock invocations that don't expend spell slots in the same round (provided you had action surge to get to cast two spells). The spell slot is irrelevant to casting a spell. It is the casting part that is restricted by the bonus action.
@eraz0rhead I don't think his idea works. A magic action is confusing because it makes it sound like there is additional step in compat. Like can you take a magic action and a regular action? Bonus action spells and reaction spells are not taken on an Action, so the statement would be way more confusing. In fact, and really importantly the bonus action states "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." This means that if you don't cast a bonus action spell you can action surge and cast two spells, as the trigger only happens during the bonus action. Calling any action where a spell is cast a magic action would make that way more confusing.
I would go even farther and say this version of twin spell is also a must have, first pick meta magic. I cannot imagine any scenario where I wouldn't rather spend a 2nd level spell slot and one sorcery point to upcast a spell than spend a third level slot. And I can imagine many scenarios where I wouldn't consider upcasting but at the low cost of 1 point I'd be happy to. Hopefully there are also new options! You listed some great ones, blindness/deafness, fly etc. But they're very clearly thinking of synergies more deliberately now imo. We are bound to see new opportunities to use our slots efficiently to deal with obstacles at every level.
Of course! - As I see it, however, people who play Sorcerer want to live the "Blaster Caster Meta" dream: Taking away their favorite toys, like Chromatic Orb and Haste, and handing them out such un-fun options like Hold Person ( is not Scorching Ray! )or Banishment ( both require Concemtration) instead, is just very RUDE! ^^ - In short : All the spells on the Twin list are exactly those on the Ignore list of the "general population ". And, if these spells then become dominant options, competing with Fireball et al: Why play Sorcerer!? Edit: In the eyes of the playerbase, Twinned Spell had 4 major applications, for single-target spells: Hideous Laughter, Chromatic Orb, Haste, and Polymorph. All 4 get cancelled, as each of them is due to the relative strength of the effect not supposed to work against multiple targets.
With this new version sorcs are gonna be MVPs with spells like fly and invisibility, at Lv5 you can cast invisibility with a third level slot and enhance it with twin spell to have three party members become invisible, that is super useful for stealth missions, escapes, ambushing, or just giving the three attack based party members advantage on their next attacks.
Yeah, my group had the exact opposite response to most of the online chatter about twinned spell. It seems extremely cheap to me, especially when you start looking at higher level spells.
@@Badbenthamhaste was never meant to be twined, it functioned like Dragons Breath, another spell that was never meant to be twined. Then came JC and his confusion advice, and mudded the water about the meta magic and which spells could use it. So it would not be a good idea to mention haste in any survey response if anyone wishes to get 'old twined spell' back in any form. The new iterations strike me as ways to try and stop twinned Haste. That is their main design decision it seems.
Twin is weak, even weaker now than it was before and it was weak then. If it feels like a must take to you than just shows how much of a bunch of nothing the metamagic options actually are. I guess you take empowered and twin at lvl 3 just so you feel your MM is doing anything at all that isn't super niche, so you don't just feel like a worse wizard who was able to do a gimmick once with a spell in the campaign(twinning a fly once probably qualifies).
I appreciate you doing the legwork on Counterspell. For days, I've been thinking about the exact things you researched and cited. Unlike you, I was too committed to playing BG3 to do the work. Thanks! I think you've mostly convinced me. My main concern was seeing less success from a 3rd-level slot, and it seems likely that this isn't going to be too bad a nerf. You're definitely correct about it feeling less frustrating for players on the receiving end and/or DMs on the casting end. That's a valid point in its favor. The new Twinned Spell is good. I do think it needs a different name, both for better optics and artfully dodge the widespread butthurt; and because "twinned" doesn't feel like a good fit. I'd recommend something like "Expanded Spell" or "Elevated Spell". (I know the latter is probably far too close to "heightened". These metamagic options seem to provoke similar adjectives in my imagination. I think expanded is a good fit.)
Yeah, the name needs to change or it needs to be clarified that it only works for single target spells that can be upcast to target additional creatures. Because making Scorching Ray go from 3 to 4 doesn't sound like twinning.
Regardless, me liking new Twinned Spell is entirely dependent on having a lot more spells with upcasting effects. So far, this is only a handful. JC said there would be more spells, but out of all UAs we've gotten so few spell changes and most have been reverted, so there is no guarantee that we will get more spell options. We've already be let down with the promise of big changes and more options this UA cycle. It would also be nice to have more of the applicable spells just be sorcerer spells so that multiclassing isn't as necessary for optimization. Nearly every Sorcerer optimization guide recommends multiclassing, but you don't find that as often for Wizards and Clerics. Without that, I wouldn't use new twin spell until I'm getting 3rd level spells because they are available without multiclassing and actually worth casting and are actually cheap. The new pointsslots conversion rules mean you can convert points to slots then cast the spell on the same turn and that only cost 1 more sorc point for spells level 1-2 than would twinning, and you're just creating a higher spell slot which means you can apply it to ALL your spells. With how situational this need would arise, I'd rather use the conversion feature all sorcerers have and have two metamagic options other than twin, even if it would save me 1 more sorcerer point. At higher level spells, sure, twin spell is great for the reasons you mentioned, but there are much fewer applicable spells the higher the spell level, so everyone's taking that hold monster even more frequently than they already were. I still want to be able to twin spells like Mage Armor, which won't break the game like Polymorph and Haste would. But if they make this one upcastable to target more creatures, then the problem is solved. But again, my support of it depends on information we haven't gotten yet and there is no guarantee we ever will. Since I can't give a conditional approval on the survey, it's a dislike from me. It's just like trying to give feedback on UA stunning strike when I haven't seen the changes, if any, to CON scores in the new monster manual. If the problem is 2014 PHB Twinned Spell is too strong, then it's cost should be increased. That version means you are using half your Sorc Points to twin your highest level spell. Increasing it so that can only be done once per LR would be a great change in my opinion. Twinning Haste and Polymorph still shouldn't be options, but I'd hate to make it only work on non-concentration because twinning Protection from ______ spells would be a great and not so overpowered alternatives. Even still, I don't think you can argue that Sorcerer was stronger than Wizard and Cleric, and I really don't think we should be nerfing the strengths of Sorcerer while the strengths of Cleric and Wizard go unchanged or get buffed. There are sorcerer subclasses still not getting additional spells while the clerics not only get free spells but get better effects on those spells. And this still should not be called twin spell, but naming convention this UA has been hit-or-miss already.
In my CoS game I've been Twinning spells like Protection from Evil and Good, Vortex Warp, and Darkvision and not really anything else. Absolutely none of my go-to spells upcast to target extra creatures, and they are the only things that have kept my party alive this long. PfEaG in particular is a game-changer if you're in a campaign with a lot of undead, fey, etc - and it's a concentration spell that's REALLY worth the sorcery points, especially at low levels when your spell slots and sorcery points are incredibly scarce.
100% agree with you on the counter spell commentary. On twin spell, I honestly think it is still a “must have”. In fact, besides losing twin on haste and the ability to twin cantrips, it’s better. Much better.
@@InnsannaStories thanks for pointing that out. I had thought it did for some reason… in fact, the more I think about it, the limitation on spells this works with is pretty rough. It’s still amazing for mind whip, hold person, fly, invisibility, and the new jump spell.
I always enjoy TM's videos immensely. This one especially, because I was fortunate enough to be one of the players casting Counter Spell in the session he mentions. I think the PT version is much more balanced than the 2014 version for both players and DMs.
WotC are, on the whole, pretty smart (putting aside OGL nonsense). I'm hoping that they are fully aware this, and have planned accordingly. Best case scenario, they say 'we know it's unpopular but it's good for the game and you can always use the old version if you want'. It's also possible that they will pull back very slightly from this version, perhaps finding a compromise position which gives us the fixed versions but also feels like a side-grade rather than a strict downgrade. I'm sure these surveys are partly about building hype and marketing so hopefully they don't read too much into it.
In contrast to my reservations on counterspell I'm all for the new twinned spell changes. That seems like a perfectly good way to keep the feel of twin spell, by having it only work with the spells designed for that kind of effect. I *am* hoping that they change a few more spells to add targets with upleveling, I think there are a number of spells that could be given extra target upleveling that currently are disappointing bc they don't do anything extra when up-leveled. And if they wanted to loosen twin spell a little further and let it work with basically any cantrip the way it used to that could be fun? But even if they didn't do either of those things, they could print this change as is and I'd be happy
I find people's reactions to the new twinned spell really odd because when I first saw it, I thought that it probably needed an increase in the cost of sorcery points. It's pretty darn good especially when you consider that there's been a trend in giving spells an upcast benefit that didn't previously have one.
I think it really goes to show how much people suffer from mental blinders to the big picture. "You took my toy away so I don't even care that you gave me a different version of said toy that's also awesome in its own right! I'm gonna be mad anyway"
I think the cost is about where it needs to be, since the idea is to give the upcast at a discount, and with the changes to sorcery point and spell slot conversion, two points might overdo it.
@@dwil0311 That has been a trend this whole playtest. Power creep here, nerf there, boost this ability to the sky, cut this ability to the ground, all in the name of balance. People will disagree on which abilities each of those descriptors fit but chances are they have an ability in mind for each one.
Because it hurts the uniqueness of Sorc if its just an upcasting thing now. Sure it still exists but in a capacity where more or less any caster could do it.
I totally agree with you on twinned spell. The change is a great compromise that makes Twin spell feel like twinned spell while still giving a boost to sorcerers using it. I disagree with Counterspell though. I have never heard of that 4th level psychic lance spell until today, and I don't really value it personally, but even with that it's better than the new counterspell because it deals damage and takes away an enemy's whole turn rather than just one action. That is definitely worth a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot. Oh and it's 120 ft range so it can sit outside of either 2014 or playtest 7 counterspell. The new Counterspell is literally a reaction and a 3rd level spell slot to make an opponent lose their current action - if they fail a con saving throw. That is 1st level spell territory with spells like Command, Tasha's Hideous laughter, etc. I'd rather let the opponent cast their fireball and I expend a 1st level spell slot for absorb elements. Then I can lob my fireball right back at them - or my lightning bolt - or twin haste the two fighters in the party. I will concede the current counterspell is so good it's necessary - but it literally is trade one spell slot and a reaction for another spell slot and action/bonus action/reaction - and for a 3rd level spell slot that's fair. Could it use a bit of a nerf? Yeah probably, but this current version is not worth a 3rd level spell slot in my eyes. Compare to Haste which doubles speed and gives an extra action, compare with Fireball or Lightning bolt which is 8d6 damage to multiple creatures, compare to fly which gives 60 ft movement virtually everywhere , compare to Spirit Guardians which can do so much passive damage it's not even funny. You need DMs to be able to curb a murderhobo party that doesn't care how big the room is they cast fireball. You need players to be able to be able to fight against dickish dms that want to cast big mean 9th level spells against a 5th level party. And there are ways around counterspell - such as subtle spell, being outside the range, or upcasting to force a less than like 50 percent roll off (which then someone with silvery barbs can push for disadvantage on, etc. while the other side can guidance/bardic inspire). In your archmage example - the archmage fails the saving throw to cast a 9th level spell - they still have the 9th level spell slot. Unless you're gonna kill the archmage in 1 round (admittedly doable for a few optimized builds) what's stopping them from doing it next round? In which case you're gonna waste another 3rd level spell slot for them to maybe roll bad again? Nah. I'd rather go boom, spell slot expended for a spell slot expended. The new counterspell doesn't even have an option for upcast. It's bad and I will kill it in my survey.
Scenario: A hostile sorcerer casts Fireball using its Action. An ally wizard casts Counterspell. The sorcerer fails its Constitution saving throw; its spellcasting process is interrupted, but the spellslot is not expended not the caster counts as having cast a leveled spell this turn. Can the sorcerer uses Quickened metamagic and casts Fireball using its bonus action? I think so.
10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
The change to Counterspell makes the choice between War Caster and Resilient Con more interesting as well (assuming there are no changes to these feats). War Caster helps with concentration saves but isn’t going to help you against Counterspell, where Resilient Con protects both.
Honestly, the interaction with Legendary Resistance is the BEST PART of this change! FINALLY you can't completely shut down the final boss using a 3rd-level Reaction with nothing they can do about it! It got to the point as a DM where I had to give my casters counterspell for the sole purpose of countering counterspell.
Just robe the casters of their reaction. Shocking grasp does it, making a wizard cast shield also eats that reaction. Make your liches Sorcerers rather than wizards all the time and have them use subtle spell. If you're just throwing a wizard out there by themselves with not battle plan in front of a party; of course they're going to get whacka moled
I have to say I do prefer the old twinning option, as while it is expensive for a higher level slot and sometimes a bargain on the low level it has great flexibility, and that you can make that choice to use it on the wide range of high level spell you might know is a good thing - it may not be obviously optimal in all cases but the game is so situational there are times you will really want to spend those sorc points. And once you burn them they are gone, its a choice you had to make - those 5 points to duplicate hold might well make sense despite the high cost, as its a real game changer if it works, to the extent is really shouldn't be the playtest 7 versions level of cheap! I also personally don't think 2014 twin spell is so much better than all the other meta magic's, absolutely strong but that is also true of many other metamagic, As when you make the choices for metamagic options you should be picking the ones that match your other choices - twin spell is useless if you don't have spells to twin and the other metamagics are similarly rewarding if you pick the right options!
One of the big problems with the surveys are that DMs are significantly outnumbered by players, so anything that balances the game through a perceived 'nerf' is going to have an uphill battle. I like both the new counterspell and twinned spell. Odds are when the dust settles, I'll put together a Frankenstein of the changes from the various playtests I prefer as 5.OZ and use that, and both of these will be in that.
1) *twining* should be specifically for spells that never hit two target even when up cast. Gonna say a flat 4 sorcery points is a fair price. 2) the new “twin” needs a different name, or different mechanic I recommend: *Bolster Spell* : 2points For any upcast able spell cast that does the upcast of one level higher. Spell level technically the same for counter spell, dispel magic, etc.
Yeah both will get a very satisfied from me. Balancing spells and CR ratings are two of the biggest needs for one D&D. These are good changes. Next we need Shield, Silvery Barbs, Spirit Guardians, Conjurer Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Polymorph, Mass Suggestion, Force Cage, Simulacrum, True Polymorph, Mass Heal, and Wish.
You make a very clear argument as to why these two are not as powerful as before but otherwise better than they were before. Your argument as to why having more viable options, more choice, more playability is such a wonderful thing to hear. The community sure is lucky to have ya. Can Twin Spell not be used to up level spells multiple times by spending as many sorcery points as you like? Does this need to clarified? While I was watching you brought up the 2014 version of Twin Spell and I got confused for a second and thought, that's not the playtest version of Twin Spell is it? I remember it being better than that.. I feel that Twin Spell though obviously not as powerful as it was, would with this version generally be more useful, allowing more choice when it comes to sorcery point expenditure. Counterspell arguments make it appear likely to be more impactful in game play. Possibly saving your team a round when things could otherwise have gone quite sideways, especially with higher level combats. Subtle, but impactful. Just the way counterspell should be maybe.
I love that this channel has a reputation for measured takes. The objective approach is way better to watch than someone who over reacts. Thanks for bringing up so many examples in addition to the math to make your points.
Crawford also said there will be more spells that will have the ability to be upcast to target an additional creature. That will provide even more options for the new twinned spell. I hope they add haste to that list.🤞
Haste likely will, and if it is, that'll just add frustration and irony because the biggest complaint people had was that Twinned Spell shouldn't be allowed to be used on concentration spells because that's too broken.
At least if Haste can be upcast, non-sorcerers who get it will also be able to target multiple creatures eventually and Twin Spell will just be the earliest and most efficient way.
@@KevinVideo Haste isn't even a very strong spell. It feels good to use, but is basically just equivalent to being a bundle of the benefits of a few nonconcentration level 1 and 2 spells in most practical use cases. (Unless you use the popular homebrew of Extra Attack working with the added action.) Slow is the cooler base game time magic (overcoming at least two targets' saving throws is about the same impact, which shouldn't be too hard targeting four to six targets).
Hast is a strong spell it gives the character you cast on a +2 extra to AC 10 extra feet of movement an extra attack cast on two characters that are built right over a minute of time they can due about 500 to 700 extra points of damage so is OP. The reason why I would like to be either Upcast or Twine is it gives someone who plays a caster a way to make friends with other characters and they have a reason to PROTECT CASTER and to not get in your way when You cast an AREA EFFECT SPELL so you can better CONTROL the BATTLE. The caster job description is CONTROLLER. If you have played at gaming conventions or adventure league modes at gaming stores it is hard for people to play as a team this spell helps and ALLOT so let it be upcast or twined that is if your ideal of Dungeons and Dragons is a cooperative team game and NOT A FREE FOR ALL.
@@karlelges8800 You still have to expend an action to cast it, so it's best when used with teamwork effecting others. Helping other party members is a good thing for a spell to encourage, but you're still giving up crowd control, big multitarget damage, and other such effects that turn. Plus, expecting a battle to both last all 10 turns and for the Sorcerer's concentration to not get interrupted in such a drawn out combat (striking the targets with the huge risk/reward lethargy element of the spell), is overwhelmingly optimistic. Theory crafted scenarios and actual play are totally different things. Most of the time, the extra action from Haste is better off used tactically like a temporary form of Thief Rouge's Cunning Action than it is as a damage boost. Damage stacking gimmick builds are just clickbait. (Also, if you want a real one, try upcasted Scorching Rays and/or Eldritch Blasts cast with upcasted Spirit Shroud active. Shotgun Mage.)
After listening to your case for the new Twin Spell, I think it is more reasonable than it sounds at first reading. Two things stand out to me, though. 1) It feels like a poor argument to say that it's okay that there are not many first level Sorcerer spells that work with Twin Spell because multiclassing exists. I've seen tables that don't allow multiclassing, and either way, a Sorcerer class feature should stand on its own and have options for a single classed Sorcerer. If picking Twin Spell locks you into a very specific first level spell pick to be able to use the feature, that's just as much of a problem as Forcecage making other Mystic Arcanum choices not worth considering. (Even better would be for Twin Spell to let you pick a first level spell that can be affected by it as a bonus spell known, to ensure that you can't accidentally leave yourself in a situation where you have a metmagic option you literally can't use.) 2) It's true, the 2014 Twin Spell is easily a top pick for metamagic. Other than a few specific spells that combo with Twin Spell extremely well, however, I'd argue that's much more a factor of how underwhelming the other choices feel than anything else. I'd much rather see all the other metamagic options brought up closer to 2014 Twin Spell's level than the reverse. Metamagic is probably a significant part of why you're taking Sorcerer levels instead of Wizard anyway, so they really ought to be rather class defining.
Than I would assume you like the new counterspell? In my experience counterspell and counterspell chains has been some of the most unfun things in the game.
For Twinned Spell. I like the direction, but I like twinning the few damage spells we have access to that qualify. Chromatic Orb is one. Only costs 1 SP to Twin and is very "showy". Current playtest version doesn't allow twinning Chromatic Orb (or any attack spells that qualify). Blasters blast and twinning a blast means more blasts for blasters. Counterspell is doing well, but I've stated before, on another video, how it's not an equal trade. I do like how it's not auto counter, upcasting has zero effect, and that it's a saving throw. I'll burn a Legendary Resistance in the first round (how is my character to know what tf Legendary Resistance is?) against a Lich. What I don't like about playtest counterspell is there is no consequence, and hardly a price, to being counterspelled. The target doesn't lose the slot, only the action. You've lost a reaction and a slot. That's not a fair trade.
Just to mention one more thing about whether this is "useless" against creatures with legendary resistance. The universal strategy against those creatures is to make them use up those resistances as fast as possible. Counterspell is a reaction spell, if the enemy uses up one of its legendary resistances before you've even had your turn that's a good thing and you're way closer to an opponent that's out of resistances
Well, my strategy was twinning Haste on the two martials in my party and avoid save-or-suck spells. However, with the updated Counterspell, it might become a viable strategy to burn through Legendary Resistances despite only having 1-2 full casters in the party.
Yes and no, if you counterspell them dropping a massive spell like dominate person and they pass with legendary resistance I don't think anyones going to be celebrating the dropping of one of their LR as your friends now beating your face in under dominate. Disintegrate being LR through your counterspell and now the players dust and uh.. well they are down a LR. Given some of his situations like the archmage than yes the new ones pretty good since its not a gamble, and hitting monsters with LR with mild spells that they than burn a LR to resist is also an upside
Unless there's some errata I've missed, you 100% can twin ice knife RAW. Maybe not RAI, which seems to be the only version Crawford knows (like when he says you can't twin dragon's breath), but RAW there's nothing in TS about AOEs having anything to do with it. Sage Advice recommends it as a way to identify twinnable spells, but the PHB does not.
The thing you’re missing is the way the game defines “target.” It’s not a thing in the spell statistics, it’s determined as a result of the spell’s effects - the targets of Fireball are every creature affected by the Fireball. Because Ice Knife has an AOE effect, it is capable of targeting more than one creature and is therefore ineligible for Twinned Spell. The game doesn’t distinguish between initial effects and rider effects; Ice Knife doesn’t work for the same reason Magic Missile and Fireball don’t work.
@GreyGramarye false. The spell descriptions state whom those spells target. Otherwise you couldn't twin haste because then the "not targets" can attack multiple "targets".
I've never had an issue with any of the changes to twinned spell. Maybe it's cuz I just never loved the flavour of it or whatever, so even though it was technically most powerful I didn't use it very often. Counterspell, on the other hand, I'm quite sad about. I could maybe be convinced on the saving throw vs ability check (though I'll be honest, this video didn't really do that for me) but I'm not sure I'll ever be convinced about the target not losing their spell slot. To me, a big part of why I don't like the saving throw, is because it shifts the onus of strength from the caster to the target. (Yes, I know the caster's save DC does go up as they level/increase in CR, but still) meaning that now, sure, more powerful casters, both player and non-player are harder to counterspell (their stated motivation), but before, every time you gained a new level of spell slot, and were able to just shutdown even more powerful spells, that felt epic. And similarly, when you're facing off against an enemy, and they counterspell like a fifth or sixth level spell without needing to do an ability check, you knew you were up against something powerful. In this new version, regardless of what any math says about how technically "powerful" it is, it just feels worse to use, and I likely won't ever use it again, even if mathematically I still should be. Cuz while I do care about some level of balance, this game isn't just a spreadsheet to me, and the flavour of spells, and the flavour of their mechanics, also matter.
So many of the complaints I see on the counterspell change is people saying they wouldn't take it now (GOOD!) while completely ignoring that the change applies to when an enemy casts too. Parties without a counterspeller don't have to worry about it as much. Nothing sucks like getting counterspelled.
I think removing twinned spell and just making this version a general 'empowered' metamagic that upcasts using sorcery points would be neat. You could then have 2014 twinned spell appear at like level 14 or whenever the sorcerer is needing a boost Vs the wizard again. But yeah twinned spell is too good, it just feels less so comparing to outlier spells. On that counterspell does need reigning in and I think this works with previous thoughts I had. Counterspell should give a resource or action advantage, not both and I think the fail mechanism is more streamlined if agnostic of spell levels involved (maybe up the DC for upcasting and the opposing creature gets a bonus to save for each level over 3 and a more general action that interrupted magic actions with components or modified other actions looking at a spell level or proficiency bonus of the creature would be great).
This is ultmately how I feel about the new Twinned Spell. I like it but yea it feels like you are empowering a spell instead of twinning it. I can agree with dropping it and renaming this to be the new Empowered or really Heightened Spell. Could even keep Empowered/Heightened the same but rename this to Boosted Spell. I personally never used Twinned Spell much. It never fit many of my Sorceror builds
The new twinned is by no means underpowered, but it just feels a little bit vanilla. Any caster can do the same thing as long as they have the required spell slot. With the old rules, no one else could do the things a sorcerer could do with twinned spell, and it made it unique and fun.
The twinned spell is a no brainer, it's ridiculous to complain about it, but counterspell is not so easy. It will really depend what creatures the DM uses. People usually play within circles and with the same DM, so presenting a large average is not going to matter for them, and it's important because they will make a decision in the survey based on their personal experience. Assuming players are usually playing released modules, I don't think counterspell is that much of an issue. I didn't realize at first that it requires a con save as a 3rd lvl spell against a 9th lvl spell, instead of the 2014 version of upcasting it in order to contest the cast. That is very strong. In a lot of cases it will be a straight up buff ( for example, all the monsters you presented, the new counterspell would be a buff ). Great video!
Not feeling that you have to burn your highest level spell slots on Counterspell is a huge improvement of the experience of playing a spellcaster. Now you can actually expect to use your new shiny toys you pick up when you get access to higher level spells.
@@BramLastname Or just modules and the Monster Manual. NPCs and monsters tend to have higher level spells for their CR than player characters of the same level. And for boss encounters you're even using creatures of higher CR than the party, so even higher level spells. More often than not, enemy Fireballs and Lightning Bolts default to being upcasted as written written in their statblocks or module notes.
@@BramLastname Which is also true of most of the people complaining about this idea for changing Counterspell. Admittedly, I (and this TH-camr, not that he never gets anything wrong) probably know more of the mechanics of 5E than is reasonable to expect as the baseline for anyone playing it. And my observations are partially anecdotal, too.
I had the negative knee jerk reaction to counterspell when I first saw it. But you have convinced me. The weak con saves of caster monsters looks promising indeed. Delaying monster's spell casting by one turn is almost as good as wasting his slot. I have no idea how many slots the monster has. Monster isn't going to be continuing it's work day after the encounter with his spell slots still intact. But my spell slots as a player on the other hand is so very important. I very likely will be continuing my work day and getting to keep that spell slots after being targeted by a counterspell will be so much better than having lost it.
I still don’t know if I’m completely sold on the new counterspell. I went in already agreeing with the large majority of what you had to say, it needed the nerf and most of the nerfs are well in line to what it should be. I do think the weight of the con save and legendary resistances are a little undersold still. Does it account for things like dragons with the spellcaster template? Or a module specific boss like Strahd? It also doesn’t account for homebrew (understandably so I will emphasize) or even just tweaked existing stat blocks that people are gonna use for their big bad bosses, where this change is gonna be felt the most. But even then that’s not really a deal breaker. What sucks is when I do succeed despite all those defenses and it barely matters. The 1 round delay is just not enough, if it even makes it to that round. It may not be common but I’d hate to get counterspell off only for the bad guy to spend some legendary actions and cast it anyway. Or if I counterspell after going through the effort of burning legendary resistances and lowering their save etc. and aligning the stars for a low roll… but it doesn’t matter because their next turn comes around and they cast it again and it was only luck that we got it the one time. I don’t think Mind Whip or Psychic Lance are proper comparisons either. The cost of an action and that of a reaction are so different. And they aren’t nearly as pigeonholed into the role of delaying casters as you made it sound. Incapacitating is a condition that’s good to slap on any threat, not to mention the damage and the whole mechanics around the Naming of the target to hit out of site enemies and give them a worse save. It’s a Lot more than the delay that this counterspell is. I think at Least it should keep the spell from being recast for a couple more turns. My initial thought was 1d4+1 rounds. And I’m sure there’s more tweaking needed, like maybe only one spell can be offline at a time. But for a third level spell slot it needs to have more oomph than that. That said, this as is would be a good template for a martial counter to spells. Maybe slap it on the mage slayer feat. Also lol at wasting counterspell on Time Stop. If a mage wants to waste their 9th level slot on the worst Level to effect ratio in the game they are more than welcome to. Unless there’s a timed MacGuffin in play it’s not worth the reaction, even if you gave me the third level slot for free 😂
" The 1 round delay is just not enough" I don't understand this take at all. Eliminating an action with your reaction is huge. Action economy is the most important factor in combat. Even if they use a LA to cast the spell, they could have cast 2 spells and instead they only get 1.
I loved these changes to counterspell and twinned spell, specially twinned spell. I have a personal issue with counterspell, because you don't know, in theory, what spell is being cast without identify it first. You can use your action or reaction to "Identify a Spell", XGE, p. 85, and make an Arcana check to it, if your table is using this optional/variant rule. But notice here that you have only one reaction, so you can't identify the spell and counterspell simultaneously. If you are the party's spellcaster, probably you have good Arcana checks, but you can't identify by your own using your unique reaction, so you will need another member to make it for you, or you have to identify it and other person will cast counterspell. Counterspell is normally used as a metagame spell, where you will use this spell when you know that the casting of it will be worth. As a DM I say that "you see the enemy casting something", and the players will decide what to do about this. That's why I don't think counterspell is a "must have" spell as everyone says online, and even I don't think it is broken considering that most of time players will not know what spell is going to be cast (for exemple, I had a funny experience where the enemy vampire spellcaster said to the wizard that he liked him and the wizard would be the last one to be killed. I described "you see that the vampire is casting a spell, he is looking at the wizard!", the wizard counterspelled a Fog Cloud - and he only discovered the spell because the vampire later on said to him - and this situation is more common than it looks). Also, the old version of counterspell is hard to work against higher level spells, normally the player will fail the ability check. That's said, I think the new version of counterspell is healthier to the game, and the enemy caster now having to make their CON saving throw adds more mystery, because players will not even know the level of the spell being cast without identify it.
Maybe the survey asks: "If either the con save OR not expending the spell slots needs to stay, which would you pick?" That would be a middle ground I can settle for.
Well the con save removes the mind game element where DMs would bait out counterspells using 4th level slots And not losing the spellslot fixes the issue of the Warlock getting counterspelled as soon as they cast anything that isn't eldritch blast.
Agree, this is good design. I really, really hope they are changing the worst offenders, too, Conjure Animals... And then it is probably up to us to not just say no, so thanks for the lobying, soldier on, please.
This needs to be clarified but the newer spell caster stat blocks don't have spell slots. They have either at will spells or # casts per day. Does the new CS not consume "casts per day"? The wording of the spell doesn't mention them only spell slots.
To be fair, I just like twinning damage spells and the ability check that counterspell does. The rest of counterspell is great, I just personally don't like the saving throw. I think if it's going to remain a saving throw, it should be a saving throw for the spellcasting ability modifier of the target creature.
i think you made some great examples for the new twinned spell and indeed, there shouldn’t be a metamagic that is just so overpowerd that every Sorc MUST take it. for it to be a more “niche” is better imo. or like you said that it is in line with the others
I disagree, but mostly because Twin was a must have because most of their meta-magics were BAD. It might be an acceptable change, but I don't think it will ever be a necessary one
I honestly don't mind the Twinned Spell change, since it was very powerful. Only thing I am going to miss about it is twinning damage cantrips. But I do think they should rename it, what it does now isn't really twinning, maybe it should just be like 'spreading spell' since it only targets 1 additional target. In fact maybe they should make a metamagic called "Upcast spell" which lets you cast ANY spell at a spellslots of a higher level, though you can't really justify something like that for every spell at the cost of only 1 sorcery point.
I think my issue with twinned spell is whether 1 point is enough of a cost. I get that going from a level 2 hold person to level 3 means you’re burning a level 2 plus 1 sorcery point. But I’m not sure if twinning a banishment should be a 4th plus 1 sorcery point. I mean creating a spell usually costs 2 more than the previous level. Two for a 1st, 3 for a 2nd, then 5 for a third, 7 for a 4th and 9 for a 5th. Seems like twinned should be 2 not 1
Twinned Spell would be an almost redundant metamagic option if it didn't give you something better than what you could mostly replicate by just converting Sorcery Points to Spell Slots. From 1st to 2nd level spell slots, the cost only increases from 2 to 3 Sorcery Points, so it would feel especially bad when you first pick up Metamagic. Just because it was prohibitively expensive at high levels before, doesn't mean it should now be prohibitively expensive at low levels. Fortunately, WotC seems to go in the opposite direction with Heightened Spell having its cost reduced from 3 to 2 Sorcery Points, which makes it more viable at low levels,
For counterspell, my only complaint is there’s no benefit to upcasting. Perhaps a per lvl +1 bonus to dc, a per 2lvl upcast gives 1 round of the spell that was countered being uncastable, or expend the target spell slot if the spell slot used to cast counterspell is a higher lvl.
How would you feel about the counterspell rebalance if it did expend the spell slot? If it has all of the current changes (con save, etc) but still expended the target's spell slot? Do you think it would fail at rebalancing counterspell enough? Bc I see your argument using psychic lance and I understand, but incapacitated is more debilitating than you let on. It auto breaks concentration, it wasted both action AND bonus action, it has the flexibility of preventing a multi-attack monster from getting in a bunch of hits, etc. And while the damage isn't the reason to cast the spell, but it also isn't nothing. Psychic lance has higher upside and less downside (if I fail, at least I still get *some* damage and the chance to break concentration that way). Yes, the comparison still isn't perfect bc it's a higher level spell, but the analogy not being as clear as you describe is my point. As a mid level player, I really don't think I want to cast a spell where the *best* I can hope for is spending a reaction and one of my higher spell slots just to cost an opponent an action and nothing else. Feeble mind is still *devastating* one round later. I'm ok with monsters and players alike having a chance to resist. And I'm ok with legendaries coming into play, let the legendary monsters be scary (and wasting a legendary as a reaction is actually an interesting wrinkle if you have to burn through legendaries). But given the cost of what is a higher level slot for most characters in their careers, I think it should do more on a success and still expend the target's slot. Also for the sake of consistency, since it still expends item charges or non slot per day usages, etc.
The NPC mage would also burn the player's highest level spell slots with Counterspell then, which just isn't fun. As long as I have spell slots to spare, I would try to delay Feeble Mind in the hope that we can down the mage before they get it off.
Regarding the Bonus Action and Misty step thing. The trigger of the reaction of Counterspell IS someone casting a spell, so the spell IS cast. What counterspell does is changing the resolution of the spell... so no bonus action to cast an extra spell.
@@andrewshandle It makes more sense that because your spell was interrupted you can suddenly cast another spell. The fact that you don't lose the spell slot is because of the "feel bads" of not getting to use the spell that Counterspell creates... which for high level spells it's pretty bad.
@@estebanrodriguez5409 your logic makes no sense logically though, if you were interrupted before you finished, it was never cast. Forget the "feels bad" part, just mechanically it's wrong. If I try and buy a candy bar from a store and the credit card payment is interrupted and money never changed hands and I don't get the candy bar, you'd never say the sale went through. The sale doesn't happen until money (a spell spot) is traded for a good (the effect of the spell). Stopping something from being cast means it's never cast. It's pretty simple logic.
@@andrewshandle Your analogy is not relevant because bank transactions aren't the rules of the game... it would be EXACTLY like saying "In Magic the Gathering Counterspells work this way" to prove my point. By the same logic, you can't interrupt something that was never casted. The spell was already casted otherwise the trigger wouldn't work. And it's already such a core thing that you can't use more than one slot spell per turn to create such a needlesly obtuse cornerstone case.
@@estebanrodriguez5409 I'd say my analogy is spot on, casting a leveled spell has a cost, if it's interrupted, it's never cast. If it was cast, it couldn't be interrupted because the spell would be finished. You're just wrong on this.
Easy way to placate those worried about twinned spell, just make more spells upcastable to target multiple creatures. Like Haste could hit an extra person for every two slots above 3rd and Id still use it. Especially with twinned.
I absolutely agree that new twinned spell is still worth having - and in the video you only listed the spells you knew about but they've said they intend to add upcasting to spells that didnt previously have it (like jump) so I'm getting a feeling spells like haste that were always fun to twin since you couldn't otherwise achieve that effect, are going to gain upcasting and thus become twinnable. When it comes to counterspell I'm super happy to see it nerfed and I honestly think its in a great spot. And dnd absolutely needs this - as me and my friends often put it when talking about D&D, theres a lot of "win buttons" and "dont lasers" and now the KING of dont lasers is fixed.
Such good arguments, how could I resist? Jokes apart, great video! The new Twinned spell is very well balanced, but I'm still not sure about Counterspell. Optimized players will fare better than most monsters, and that's strange but cool. The only "fear" I have is that either published monsters or homebrewed monster will try to out-race the spell, end up with a Con saving throw of +18 and be impossible to stop. This is also an indirect nerf of Glibness, Abjurer Wizards and Jack of All Trades
It's decent, I think it needs to block the same spell being cast again for a few rounds or something though. Maybe = mod, or 1d6 rounds or something. A creature just casting the same spell again with a legendary action is gonna feel bad. An extra delay would make this version fine though.
I think that - for the sake of both players and monsters - the current Counterspell saving throw shouldn't be Constitution, but whatever ability score the creature uses for its spellcasting. Perhaps a Constitution if no ability score is provided (ex. magic items).
This makes sense thematically, but is actually an even bigger nerf of counterspell, as this saving throw is guaranteed to be strong where Constitution may not be as high in a lot of spell casting monsters.
I know, but I think any caster should have a scaling mechanic to avoid being counterspelled, since the DC will typically scale. This nerf also makes it easier for players to avoid being counterspelled too. I believe that the current counterspell is actually too powerful against archmages and similar monsters; 60-70% chance of wasting their action. Depending on the table, you can counterspell the counterspell, but I've noticed that a fair amount of DMs don't allow that (myself included) and it only leads to more "counterspell wars".
Re: Counterspell..... Don't mind the target getting their spell slot back, for players this is probably a good thing. My only issue is that taking away the check on the players part takes the action away from the player. Much more fun if the player wants to counterspell and the effect is tied to their role. Rather than a save from the creature.
I dont mind the changes, I like the twinned spell change but the counterspell change needs some work, not balancewise but designwise. The nature of counterspell working automatically for lower level spells was wonderfull. Its not a huge impact but it makes the caster feel amazing. The main problem I have with it is that there is no upcasting. With the last version, there was some choice and interesting dynamics when casting counterspell. You needed to try and guess the spellslot the enemy used to try and make it work automatically, and it made it a mind game. Exactly what wizard fights should be about, mind games and predicting your opponent. Now you just cast it, no thinking. There is no benefit of casting with higher level spell slots. This removes player choice and is boring. I dont think the new counterspell is too weak, but I do think it is not as fun, which is the most important thing to me. Also, losing a third level spellslot and the target succeding anyway feels awfull, at least psychic lance deals half damage so you dont feel like you just wasted a spellslot. I would like to see at least some effect even if the target saves, just so it doesnt feel like a huge waste.
I absolutely agree that both of these changes are good. I hope to see some spell changes to other spells to make them compatible with the new twins spell, and but other than that, no complaints.
The 2014 twinned spell helped the Sorcerer be a fun spell blaster. Improving the new Sorcerer abilities to help the Sorcerer be an effective blaster will offset the nerf to twinned spell. They could also create new blast spells that work with the new twin spell. Witch Bolt needs improvement anyway. They could create a new version of Witch Bolt that works with the new Twin Spell.
Another thing to mention with Counterspell and not burning the spell slots: The monsters who cast spells in Monster of the Multiverse don't use spell slots. They use "1/day," "2/day," "At will," etc. Nothing within the rules of Counterspell says that those 1/day uses aren't burned when Counterspell shuts down the spell, so it's still REALLY good against the "newer design" monsters.
Yes, the not losing a spellslot part is specifically targeting player characters as Warlocks immensely benefit from this change, While most monsters do not.
Oh, I just came on to say that same thing.I should have read more comments, first :) The downside is that Feats that grant PCs 1/day no-slot uses could also be affected (e.g. Feytouched etc) I wonder if that was their intent, or not?
@@eraz0rhead that is intentional, Those features are supposed to be the "save or suck" of spell slots, They're extra features you can use. And those mainly affecting Casters makes it so they often don't really miss it anyways.
@@BramLastname You have more faith in the designers foresight than I do. It might be intentional.. or it might be clunky wording that overlooked a category of resources. Given the large number of holes in wording this channel turns up in every playtest, I'm on the fence about whether this was intended. 🤷
@@eraz0rhead let's say it like this, Based on how they specifically mentioned "if this was cast using a spell slot" I conclude they did consider the possibility it wasn't cast with a spell slot.
Why would they use a legendary resistance when they keep the spell? I don't mind the con save. I don't particularly mind the lack of updating options. I do mind that command halt is a better counterspell than counterspell as it currently stands. A third level spell slot should be removing more enemy resources than 1st level slots can. Either add damage on a fail so we get *something* for a sucess or keep the expended spell slot part of the old one.
IMO Abjurer wizards should be just as effective at Counterspelling as any Sorcerer with Heightened Spell meta-magic. It does seem like there should be some upcasting mechanic/benefit too. Also it feels like the War Caster feat should help defend against being Counterspelled.
This might slow down gameplay, feel too crunchy, or just be ineffective, but perhaps your spell save DC increases by the difference in spell slot levels of the spell and the counterspell..? Eh idk lol
The way the playtest twinned spell is worded, seems like what heightened spell should do. Spending a sorcery point to bump up the level of a spell without expending a higher slot. When you say 'twinned' people are going to expect a doubling, not a bump to the level of a spell. Seems like mostly a naming problem.
In the example, a 10th level PC wouldn't have a 9th-level spell slot to counter Time Stop. Even if they had, it sucked to cast Counterspell instead of Wish so I'm glad that the proposed change makes it obsolete to upcast Counterspell.
One criticism of the new Counterspell that I sympathize with is taking roll away from the player casting it and giving it to the target, even if I understand the reasoning behind it. I do like how the spell stands in the newest UA, but I wonder how it would feel and how the math would work out if it was a contested check between the caster and the target rather than a saving throw or an ability check.
I’m very happy with the new Twinned, especially if they are going to introduce more upcast-able spells. On Counterspell, I like the simplified mechanic, but I’d really like to retain some way to upcast to increase my odds of success. Maybe an increase to the DC of +1 per slot?
I don't think that's necessary. It _feels_ necessary, but the math suggests that you'd be wasting the higher level slot. Since your DC already scales as you level (even if you don't put points into your casting Attribute, your prof goes up), upcasting would have reduced pay-off. It'd become a bit of a trap, especially if you wasted your 9th level Counterspell on a +6 DC only to have the enemy use Legendary Resistance or some other thing you didn't know about to auto-succeed. With this version of Counterspell, you're better off relying on other means to impose disadvantage or force re-rolls, or use items to grant some higher DCs..
I don't like the UA counterspell, but I also don't like the 5e counterspell so I made my own. it replaces wizard, warlock, and sorcerer's ability to make attacks of opportunities. you always make opposed spellcasting ability checks with a bonus equal to double the level of spellslot you spend on it, but you aren't required to spend a slot. I use pf2e +10/-10 crits so I made it so a crit fail upcasts the spell you were trying to counter and crit successes reflect the spell back at the caster meaning not using higher slots carries a cost.
I like what the new twin spell presents and want to keep it, however I still want a nova option to cast 2 spells as part of the same action. Let it cost sorcery point per level cost + 2, and drop any target restrictions. Double fireball baby, who cares if it drains all my sorcery points, it’s what’s wanted by the community
Nobody wants that. Well if somebody does want that, then they're wrong. It's fun to say "double fireballs, baby!!" But that game is not fun. It's just not good for the game.
I honestly love the fact that legendary resistance can overpower counter spell. Counterspell being able to shut down the turn of Vecna or Orcus just feels too strong. It makes PCs too capable when fighting boss monster spell casters.
So I have a larger problem that this is tied to. Chris we have had this discussion before about the power difference between Wizarc and Sorc. A large part of what made sorcs able to remain somewhat competitive vs wizard was Twin spell. Yes it was overpowered, but only for a slim number of spells and slots that the sorc had. Now it is nerfed and more balanced, which I good, but the end result is the gap between wiz and sorc has increased and they don't seem to be addressing that issue. I feel like there is no longer a reason to play the sorcerer with its blaster and tricks personality as it has lost its best trick, we were already playing with one hand behind the back simply due to those limitations especially if you didn't play the Tasha sub classes, now that just feels worse, and they don't seem like they are bringing the other sub classes up to the level of Tashas (though they are including the tashas subs). That is my thought, I understand the need to twin nerfing, but without adding something to balance the sorc all we have done is widen the gap between sorc and wizard
Great video (as always 😉)! I am totally on board for the new Counterspell! But the new Twinned Spell is imho too STRONG..! Double Bannishment costs only 1 sorcery point? That's just too cheap... Double Blindness for 1 SP might be okay. But level 3 or higher spells will be too cheap to "twin", i fear... But okay, i'll use it 😅
Well, the playtest version of Banishment is trash, so let's see if there's anything that will feel as good as paying 4 Sorcery Points for twinning Polymorph did.
@@SortKaffeHold Monster at 5th? Though you probably benefit more from hitting one big creature with a Heightened Hold Monster than Twinning it and possibly missing your main target. Of course you could always pay the 3 Sorcery Points at that level and choose both...
My problem with the new counterspell isn't so much how often it is to work - which is always a failure chance anyway, thats not a big deal. My problem is I don't want to delay an enemy's spell, i want to consume it. I want to destroy the spell they are casting so i have cost them a resource. Delaying the meteor swarm by one round COULD be useful if you can kill them in one round. But i would much prefer to cost them the entire spell slot so they can't do it again in the next round. Because if i'm going to expend an entire spell slot, i want to cost the enemy a resource as well, I don't want to delay them to the next round (there are spells that do that already). Why make counterspell do that? If they allowed me to cost them that resource, i would have no problem with the change to counterspell. When i playtested the wizard just last weekend, i took the counterspell to see how it felt. Its a fine spell, but it has a 'feel bad' vibe when you use it, spend a resource, and do nothing but delay the BBEGs spell. I miss being able to cost the enemy a resource when i spent a resource. The thing with the Lance is that you have to preempt the spell to cost them the ability to cast the spell, counterspell is a reaction to cost them the resource. And, on top of that, if we HAVE the lance, and its just as good - or similar enough - we don't need another spell that does the same thing by delaying the spellcasting. What we need is the spell that costs the enemy a resource for the price of doing nothing BUT costing the enemy a resource, the same as if you cost them hit points. It works fine, and there is probably not even that much difference, one round either way could turn the battle, but it feels bad and is a bad vibe, the fun of counterspell for me has always been costing the enemy that spell resource because my wizard is so dope, just delaying it till the next turn where they still end up firebombing the party.. it feels bad, it doesn't feel like it was worth it and it feels like the action was wasted, because the effect is.. nebulous at best, because if they were gonna cast fireball, they are still probably going to cast fireball..
I would make one change to counterspell, I think it should prevent that spell from being cast until the end of the counter spelled casters next turn. So if I cast fire ball and bob coubterspells it I can’t cast fireball next turn either.
I just hope they maintain the ability to twin cantrips somewhere in the twinned spell metamagic. That is by and far my only gripe with the current playtest version. A cheap twinned spell to target two enemies with your bonus action still being free to misty step away is all i want.
Solid Twinned Spell analysis, helping really break down what it does why it's still worthy of the name. I admit that, say, Twinned Cure Wounds on a Divine Soul Sorcerer is loads of fun, but definitely broken in essentially giving you a whole other casting of a spell for very cheap. I think there's still room to address that, adding a second target to a spell that can normally never have more than one target. Maybe an "Improved Twinned Spell" or "Expanded Twinned Spell" that lets you target another creature, but you divide the effect between them. So if you Twinned Cure Wounds, each target would get half the healing. Might be too weak, not sure, but an idea. But yes, I agree with the breakdown, I think mentioned in one of the videos, that old Twinned Spell is basically "Improved Quickened Spell + Buy A Spell Slot but At A Discount," and that needs to be addressed. This seems like a precise change to bring it in line with other options, which I agree should be the goal. An attractive option, but not the hottest option at the party. As for Counterspell. . . if the target has Legendary Resistance, you probably shouldn't be able to just shut down a chunk of it's options anyway, be that magic through Counterspell or attacks by stunning/binding/what have you. A "boss monster" with these kinds of abilities should be a tough fight where your tactics have to change, because what works on the mooks won't work here. Again, I feel like the removal of "counts as magic for purposes of damage reduction" is to make this more clear, that certain monsters will just be "boss tier" and much harder to deal with, through Legendary Resistance, damage reduction, and/or other abilities. Instead of what we have now, where past a certain level most things have some kind of damage resistance, and you just have to have a way around it to fight them effectively. I don't think damage resistance is going away, I think it's being made a more impactful component of monster design, reserved for things that really should be extremely difficult to hurt. I'm especially thinking things like werewolves and vampires here. With the prevalence of damage resistance, they just don't feel as threatening or tough as their legends claim they should be. This version of Counterspell fits into that, I think. If vampires still get free 18s in all their physical scores, then a vampire spellcaster is going to be notably harder to shut down than a mortal one, which fits with vampires being high-end, dangerous monsters you really need to specially prepare for in advance. And against the near godlike power of an archdevil of the hells, a simple Counterspell should be meaningless. I duel of ordinary Wizards of comparable power, however, it could really shine, which is exactly where I feel it should. And in a group, buying even one turn where the powerful caster doesn't unleash their biggest magical power can make all the difference. Counterspell shouldn't win the fight on its own, but in conjunction with the Paladin landing a good Smite, the Rogue landing a good Sneak Attack, and the Cleric running a good buff, its impact cannot be understated.
For counter spell I would like it to operate largely like 2014 but with the ua non resource waster version or make it a ability check vs ability check. With the spell level auto counter feature still intact in either scenario.
I'd rather it be a spellcasting ability check or saving throw against the target's spell save DC. Contested checks cause congestion at the table, so having a static DC to roll against is usually better.
I agree with your assessment about Counterspell, I disagree with Twinned spell and my argument is one that you covered, but I just don't think you were successful in your persuasion check. I believe that the new twinned spell does not satisfy the theme of what I expect this metamagic to provide. I don't care if it's over powered or underpowered, I care that when I TWIN a spell, that it does double what the spell would have done if I didn't twin it. The new twin spell, in most cases, does not provide this. Lots of upleveled spells that are then twinned run into the same bad feeling as a twinned bless that you think is cherry picking. Taking your example of Banishment which DOES feel like a twinned spell when you are level 7 and cast and twin it. However when I cast Banishment at 6th level and target 3 creatures, and then twin the spell so I can target 4 instead, that is exactly like the bless situation and does NOT feel like twin spell. You're argument just does not work.
Im going to drop a very satisfied on both features but i would like to see counterspell be able to auto shutdown lower level spells with upcasting because as a player one of the most fun moments at the table was just saying i counterspell at 9th level to a power word kill or meteor swarm. I could absolutely see that coming in nerfed with only contering spells on slot lower than you cast it. Otherwise i love the new counterspell
@TreantmonksTemple Hey I absolutely love your content! A few years ago when I was first starting D&D, I rolled a Wizard for my first character and you know who's videos I was watching :)
I find it baffling that they didn't make the counter spell target save with the spell used to cast the original spell being countered. It's a actual nerf because that ensures good casters will be using a high stat and has a fun narrative where the better caster will normally win the roll. If you're a pitent caster against a lower level caster then you'll probably win, if they are better and have higher casting stats than they will probably win.
The issue I have is that the 'caster/ martial divide' campaigners have managed to ensure that every interesting change to caster classes have been undone and nerfed. The biggest problem to casters have been outlier spells, and those do need to be nerfed but because the class has been judged based on unnerfed spells, casters are going to get class nerfs AND spell nerfs while fighter and other martials can do so much damage that casters are entirely unnecessary. As a caster you are going to have three big problems. Your class without powerful spells is weak because it was balanced based on powerful spells. There are no powerful spells because outliers have been nerfed. Finally monsters can ignore your spells so when you do get a lucky spell to land that has a major effect on the encounter, the DM will likely have a way to stop it. So videos like this are going to make casters entirely obsolete.
Lets be real, the counterspell change was done for players getting countered, not for players casting counterspell. It's already bad enough to cast a high level save or suck spell.
I agree completely. Changes like this are really good for the game as a whole, because it counteracts the power creep that is becoming Oso commonplace. Yes, it doesn’t feel great, and as a warlock-with a few sorc are really good for the game as a whole, because it counteracts the power creep that is becoming Oso commonplace. Yes, it doesn’t feel great, and as a warlock-with-a-few-sorc-levels main, twin is not as nuclear, but that’s a good thing.
Thank you for the video. The arguments you brought are REALLY AWESOME. I knew Twinned Spell was better this way but I was still dissatisfied as it FELT it less unique. And wowiie, seeing how cheaply I can twin some spells, it's absolutely just as unique as before. For Counterspell I was really worried about the CON save making it a terrible gamble but your list is again making a great point. There's still some worry for me since all of my experience is that we NEVER successfully interrupt concentration on an enemy spellcaster. But on the other hand this DC is easily 5 to 10 points higher. My favourite nerf looks a little different, but overall this one apparently works well better than I anticipated.
It's interesting to notice now that Quickened Spell is the best way to Counterspell now if we follow the ruling at 21:12 . If your action to cast a spell doesn't expend the slot and you can still cast a Bonus Action spell, just Quicken it and voila!
Great video, Chris! Agree 100% in both cases here. It's really hard to bring the game into balance if super powerful options aren't addressed. Twinned Haste and Twinned Polymorph sure feel good, but are just *too* good. There was a reason those spells weren't given upcast options. Giving a class a game unique ability is really nice but not if it's game breaking. For Counterspell, I know it was too powerful the way it was but wondered if this change went too far. Because I suspected that many caster enemies had poor CON saves, that worried me less than expending a slot to delay rather than deny/deplete an enemy casting. However, remembering how bad it feels for a player to get counterspelled tipped the balance for me. I admit, the legendary resistance aspect slipped under my radar (haven't had the chance to play at a level where encountering this was likely), and it is a concern. However, that just highlights that the rest of the outlier spells need to be brought in line. If there is a spell that just wins the battle if it isn't Counterspelled, that's a problem with that spell more than a problem with Counterspell being blocked by legendary resistance. An unfortunate part of this type of design/feedback loop is that people who feel changes are just ok or even slightly good are much less likely to express that over those who feel that the changes are in any way at all negative. People hate things they like being taken away even if it's to address other concerns they have elsewhere. I hope the designers can face the very vocal negative feedback they are likely to get and continue to address the outliers.
The only issue with Counterspell for me is that a 1st level spell is as difficult (or easy) to counter as a 9th level spell. The fact that the target gets to keep the slot feels so-and-so. If the enemy has a big spell that might wreck us I’m just delaying it for a turn, best case scenario, but i suppose it’s not so terrible
It's fine other than I think the delay should be longer. It should lock out casting the same spell again for a few rounds. Like 1d6 or casting mod or something
I think that both needed changes, and I'm glad that they're working on it. That said, I think that Twinned Spell does have one other complaint that you didn't mention - namely, that it's less unique now. It's more of a feeling sort of thing, rather than a careful look at the pros and cons. It's the ability to do something unique - like twinning haste - rather than a spell that upcasts 'naturally' into multiple targets. That can certainly be something that needs to be removed as a part of bringing the option to a sweet spot, but I think it's something to keep in mind.
I have to point this out: The Bless example is extra silly because Bless was never a Twin Spell target ANYWAY because it has three targets minimum. 😂 They're complaining that a spell that *wasn't an option* before is an option *now* As for the Misty Step Counterspell thing, it reads to me more like how countering spells works in MTG: The spell is cast, the spell is countered, but the spell was still "casted" so everything that triggers off of cast happens regardless even if the spell now does nothing. That would mean that you can't bonus action Misty Step because you still casted a spell that turn, regardless of if it fizzled or not
Thank you for putting forward your argument for counterspell. I admit I also had a knee jerk reaction but your arguments and evidence is sound. My only comment is that being a ST now puts the ball in the enemy's court, while the old version was down to the player, which then felt like there was more control. The onerous was on the player to have good die rolls and min- max themselves rather than risk it on the enemies where the DM is rolling.
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
The biggest reason I have been paying attention to your writings (and then videos) about D&D for most of 20 years is the balanced way in which you approach optimizing. Sure, you look for the best combinations of traits and features to optmize a character to be the best that it can be, but you don't lose sight of the good of the game. This is just another example and I greatly appreciate you using your bully pulpit to make this case. I was already planning to be "very satisfied" with both these options--just as I was with the earlier modifications to Paladin smites and the Warlock class--but I am also going to share this specific video far and wide because Counterspell (which we love when we use it against "monsters" and hate when it is used against us) is the top of my personal list of broken spells.
Another reason I don't mind new Twinned is because Crawford promised that a lot of spells previously not upcastable are now upcastable, including several that target more creatures. Imagine Hideous Laughter targeting more creatures at higher levels!
Doesn’t it already do that?
Nvm I was wrong, then that’s a good idea.
This will be fantastic. It would also be a huge improvement Warlock.
Ya know. Assuming it doesnt show up once then get rolled back
I'm really hoping they make sure to include warlock spells and especially patron spells.
I don't mind the new Twinned Spell. I like it way more than the last UA one and it's a good compromise, especially with them updating some spells to have upcasting that benefits from it.
Their promise to update more spells to be upcastable excited me a lot.
Plus, for a lot of spells, it is significantly cheaper. 1sorc point regardless of spell level is great
I also think the new twinned spell is good! It accualy makes some of the enchantment spells cheaper to cast and is in par with the 10th level feature of the Enchantment Wizards Split Enchantment! Enchantment Wizards were better at "twinning" enchantment spells before! but sorcerers got to do it at earlier levels and now with a lower point cost! Love it!
I did miss read it at first and thought it was no limit to the number of point that could be spent!
and I do agree with TreantMonk about what was said about Counterspell in the video!
I think that the monks stunning strike, targeting Con saves have dilluted the views on some effects targeting Con saves! But the Monks are trying kinda the same thing! delay a character! but they are also giving advantage on attacks to the other party members and/or the rest of the monks attacks!
Now they just need to unscrew the monk and make it playable again! (fingerscrossed for a good monk UA)
I also really like this twinned spell change and it is much clearer than the old one.
That first try was so different and out of flavor with "twinning" that I wouldn't mind seeing it pop up again as a separate renamed metamagic alongside this version of Twinned Spell. I could see it applying to someone wanting to pick and gamble on a target still being around a turn later if they're already in the mind to gamble, such as those playing with the Wild Magic subclass.
Also, love Twinned Spell just being "A" metamagic option instead of "THE" metamagic option, with the other options made to be on-par with each other in usability.
By the way, this nerf DOES buff somewhat the Warlock Experience (TM). I have BEEN the Warlock whose two spell slots were both tanked by the enemy mage's Counterspell, and it SUCKED. I also like how it also indirectly buffs Dispel Magic, because the original version was basically "Counterspell that lets their friends get hurt first." There's just a lot of positive game experience improvements with changing just a single spell.
But Warlock upcasts to their slot level. In my campaign, I don’t think the Warlock has failed to counterspell once; and it’s happened at least 15 times.
What a dick of a dungeon master to do this twice to the warlock in one encounter.. were there no other casters? To target? And also on what horrendous power trip must a dm be to deny all your limited spellslots specifically . I would search another group if I were u.
@@blubblubwhatremember that most dnd games berly use short rest and even still . 2 slots
@@blubblubwhat no, it’s pretty great. It means I used my character’s abilities to shutdown an enemy. What more could I ask for against a high CR monster?
@@blubblubwhat you don't want a DM to use an ability against a PC? Lmao, yeah it happens a lot actually.
It's REALLY easy to blow through warlock slots
I wanted to address 2 comments that are coming up
1: Does a monster lose their X/Day "spell slot" when they are counterspelled since technically it's not a slot? My assumption is no, but that should be clarified (Edit, JC was pretty clear in the video that indeed if the resource isn't a spell slot it is lost, so my assumption was wrong.)
2: Counterspell makes Constitution saving throws more important for casters. This is true, though Constitution saving throws have always been very important to casters because of concentration saving throws.
th-cam.com/video/CQxFfFGtdxw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Ll56DRQZNgBCuFU6
At 1:24:52 Crawford says that the spell slot is not expended at a successful counter but clarifies that if they were using some other resource then those resources are expended.
Which might actually make countering monsters still work? At least if they follow through on their current redesign, where even the humanoid class-inspired NPCs have per day uses instead of spell slots?
I don't like that as a player, I want it to be just as scary to be counterspelled as it is to counterspell
See, my assumption for 1 was yes, they do still lose their resource. And that the imbalance is to encourage less monsters to have it compared to PCs
I have serious concerns about making a game via committee, which is what is happening with the playtest. Channels like yours, were you are trying to do good sound more and more like political pundits. It's not too much of a problem now, but I can really see weird arguments taking the community and splitting us apart.
Having in mind how it is worded and how crawford talked about counterspell in the last playtest video, I would argue it is meant to actually spend those "1/day" spells, which would be a good design for the players to screw monster's spells but not the other way around
@@aidandunne5978
Some have categorized it as pity prize for caster players having a vastly inferior constitution score than monster casters and even humanoid casters having a higher constitution than a player of equivalent level would have.
Another option, Upcast a spell AND add twinspell on top to have the simulated effect of upcasting by 2 levels. I'm gonna miss the double concentration utility, but this is still a reasonable option in a sorcerer's toolkit.
The doubling of concentration spells was the biggest abuse of Twinned Spell IMO. The playtest version does a great job of taming the most OP applications of the feature while still making it a solid option to choose.
@@thomashull7776 As most of the concentration spells you'd want/have to twin for great gains are high level it does burn the sorc out of points in 2014 rules, and they still have to maintain that concentration after painting that target on their back. Its damn powerful, but I'd not call it any more broken than heaps of other 5E options...
This new version seems like it might actually be rather too cheap to twin high level spells, in effect giving the sorc heaps of the highest level spell slots as they 'upcast' for almost no sorc point cost.
It was one of the ONLY things that sorcerors could do wizards could not. Honestly this nerf is dog shit
@darkarchonisme can wizards make their enemies have disadvantage on ALL their hold person/monster (and other continuous saving throws spells) saying throws? NO. Can wizards make their allies within their Fireball radius (or any other radius spell with saving throw) not take damage AT ALL? NO. Can wizards increase their spell DC and attack modifier with just a bonus action for a entire fight twice? NO. Does wizards have the unbelievably BROKEN spell Arcane Eruption? NO. Can wizards cast action spells with a bonus action? NO. I could go on for so much more, that was not even half the metamagic options, what you're saying is just objectively wrong, the ONLY THING wizards have on top of sorcerers is a better spell list and more spells known/prepared, that's it.
@@LeoAndrares Evocation wizards can shield their allies from fireball but that is a specific subclass, all of your other points are on point.
I had my reservations over the revision to Twinned Spell at first, but after I heard that it was planned for more spells to be upcast to target more creatures, I think it’s a lot more engaging Metamagic option, though I think I still prefer the new Careful, Extended or Heightened spell.
Planned *in this revision* but you know by the time they come out everything will have changed *again*. "Not 6e" is a scam.
Also people are discounting the fact you can still limit break with this version of twin spell,
Just not with spells that it was never intended to work with.
That first try was so different and out of flavor with "twinning" that I wouldn't mind seeing it pop up again as a separate renamed metamagic alongside this version of Twinned Spell. I could see it applying to someone wanting to pick and gamble on a target still being around a turn later if they're already in the mind to gamble, such as those playing with the Wild Magic subclass.
Edit: whoops, replied to the wrong comment. Anyway, love Twinned Spell just being "A" metamagic option instead of "THE" metamagic option.
I don't necessarily mind the new Twinned Spell, but it seems a shame that it no longer allows sorcerers to do something truly unique. It is now something that any spellcasting class could do provided they have that higher level spell slot.
I would say that when I use Psychic lance, the main reason is not to delay spell casting, although that's not bad for sure, but to disrupt concentration, given it provides two saves (one for maintaining it from the damage and one from avoiding incapacitation) where if you fail either you lose your concentration. That's really good! Counterspell does not provide that at all, so I do still think it's a little weaker than I would like it, but I do agree it did need change, I just think this version might end up being a little weak.
Sure but phycic lance is also one level higher
And costs your Action to cast, not just your Reaction.
I agree that maybe it should be downleveled one to a second level spell but I like this new version. It is more of a choice than a must have now. If you are in a campaign where you are fighting many spellcasters that won't have legendary saves its good and if not than maybe don't take it. Even if they do have legendary saves you can eat them with this spell. As A DM I like that my legendary spellcaster doesn't get insta-gibbed because a player has counterspell.
Counterspell is conceptually problematic,
Because for players it'll never be too strong,
While for enemies it'll always be considered too strong.
This Counterspell is still good to take, but now leaning towards one of those spells you don't pick as soon as you reach that slot level. Once you reach 4th or 5th level slots, it's must take again because having the option is worth it even if not a focus of your playstyle for that character. And Abjurers will still lean on it in to keep their Arcane Ward healthy. And Sorcerers in general can make the save pretty tough to succeed in clutch situations without special build focus between just Innate Sorcery and Heightened Spell.
I think Wizards can easily clarify the Misty Step issue encountered at 21:00 by rewording that section to say "If a character used a Magic Action to cast a leveled spell." You no longer have to scratch your head and wonder if the new Counter Spell would work, even if the spell slot wasn't expended. Since casting a spell is a type of action, utilize the action type to reduce confusion.
How would that work on bonus action spells, or reaction spells?
The bonus action misty step wouldn't work. According to the rules when you cast a spell as a bonus action "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." You have to cast a spell before it could be counterspelled. By Treantmonks logic you could cast a leveled spell as a bonus action, then cast two spells warlock invocations that don't expend spell slots in the same round (provided you had action surge to get to cast two spells). The spell slot is irrelevant to casting a spell. It is the casting part that is restricted by the bonus action.
@eraz0rhead I don't think his idea works. A magic action is confusing because it makes it sound like there is additional step in compat. Like can you take a magic action and a regular action?
Bonus action spells and reaction spells are not taken on an Action, so the statement would be way more confusing. In fact, and really importantly the bonus action states "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." This means that if you don't cast a bonus action spell you can action surge and cast two spells, as the trigger only happens during the bonus action. Calling any action where a spell is cast a magic action would make that way more confusing.
I would go even farther and say this version of twin spell is also a must have, first pick meta magic. I cannot imagine any scenario where I wouldn't rather spend a 2nd level spell slot and one sorcery point to upcast a spell than spend a third level slot. And I can imagine many scenarios where I wouldn't consider upcasting but at the low cost of 1 point I'd be happy to. Hopefully there are also new options! You listed some great ones, blindness/deafness, fly etc. But they're very clearly thinking of synergies more deliberately now imo. We are bound to see new opportunities to use our slots efficiently to deal with obstacles at every level.
Of course! - As I see it, however, people who play Sorcerer want to live the "Blaster Caster Meta" dream: Taking away their favorite toys, like Chromatic Orb and Haste, and handing them out such un-fun options like Hold Person ( is not Scorching Ray! )or Banishment ( both require Concemtration) instead, is just very RUDE! ^^
- In short : All the spells on the Twin list are exactly those on the Ignore list of the "general population ". And, if these spells then become dominant options, competing with Fireball et al: Why play Sorcerer!?
Edit: In the eyes of the playerbase, Twinned Spell had 4 major applications, for single-target spells: Hideous Laughter, Chromatic Orb, Haste, and Polymorph. All 4 get cancelled, as each of them is due to the relative strength of the effect not supposed to work against multiple targets.
With this new version sorcs are gonna be MVPs with spells like fly and invisibility, at Lv5 you can cast invisibility with a third level slot and enhance it with twin spell to have three party members become invisible, that is super useful for stealth missions, escapes, ambushing, or just giving the three attack based party members advantage on their next attacks.
Yeah, my group had the exact opposite response to most of the online chatter about twinned spell. It seems extremely cheap to me, especially when you start looking at higher level spells.
@@Badbenthamhaste was never meant to be twined, it functioned like Dragons Breath, another spell that was never meant to be twined. Then came JC and his confusion advice, and mudded the water about the meta magic and which spells could use it. So it would not be a good idea to mention haste in any survey response if anyone wishes to get 'old twined spell' back in any form. The new iterations strike me as ways to try and stop twinned Haste. That is their main design decision it seems.
Twin is weak, even weaker now than it was before and it was weak then. If it feels like a must take to you than just shows how much of a bunch of nothing the metamagic options actually are. I guess you take empowered and twin at lvl 3 just so you feel your MM is doing anything at all that isn't super niche, so you don't just feel like a worse wizard who was able to do a gimmick once with a spell in the campaign(twinning a fly once probably qualifies).
I appreciate you doing the legwork on Counterspell. For days, I've been thinking about the exact things you researched and cited. Unlike you, I was too committed to playing BG3 to do the work. Thanks!
I think you've mostly convinced me. My main concern was seeing less success from a 3rd-level slot, and it seems likely that this isn't going to be too bad a nerf. You're definitely correct about it feeling less frustrating for players on the receiving end and/or DMs on the casting end. That's a valid point in its favor.
The new Twinned Spell is good. I do think it needs a different name, both for better optics and artfully dodge the widespread butthurt; and because "twinned" doesn't feel like a good fit. I'd recommend something like "Expanded Spell" or "Elevated Spell". (I know the latter is probably far too close to "heightened". These metamagic options seem to provoke similar adjectives in my imagination. I think expanded is a good fit.)
Echoed Spell?
Yeah, the name needs to change or it needs to be clarified that it only works for single target spells that can be upcast to target additional creatures. Because making Scorching Ray go from 3 to 4 doesn't sound like twinning.
Regardless, me liking new Twinned Spell is entirely dependent on having a lot more spells with upcasting effects. So far, this is only a handful. JC said there would be more spells, but out of all UAs we've gotten so few spell changes and most have been reverted, so there is no guarantee that we will get more spell options. We've already be let down with the promise of big changes and more options this UA cycle. It would also be nice to have more of the applicable spells just be sorcerer spells so that multiclassing isn't as necessary for optimization. Nearly every Sorcerer optimization guide recommends multiclassing, but you don't find that as often for Wizards and Clerics. Without that, I wouldn't use new twin spell until I'm getting 3rd level spells because they are available without multiclassing and actually worth casting and are actually cheap. The new pointsslots conversion rules mean you can convert points to slots then cast the spell on the same turn and that only cost 1 more sorc point for spells level 1-2 than would twinning, and you're just creating a higher spell slot which means you can apply it to ALL your spells. With how situational this need would arise, I'd rather use the conversion feature all sorcerers have and have two metamagic options other than twin, even if it would save me 1 more sorcerer point. At higher level spells, sure, twin spell is great for the reasons you mentioned, but there are much fewer applicable spells the higher the spell level, so everyone's taking that hold monster even more frequently than they already were.
I still want to be able to twin spells like Mage Armor, which won't break the game like Polymorph and Haste would. But if they make this one upcastable to target more creatures, then the problem is solved. But again, my support of it depends on information we haven't gotten yet and there is no guarantee we ever will. Since I can't give a conditional approval on the survey, it's a dislike from me. It's just like trying to give feedback on UA stunning strike when I haven't seen the changes, if any, to CON scores in the new monster manual.
If the problem is 2014 PHB Twinned Spell is too strong, then it's cost should be increased. That version means you are using half your Sorc Points to twin your highest level spell. Increasing it so that can only be done once per LR would be a great change in my opinion. Twinning Haste and Polymorph still shouldn't be options, but I'd hate to make it only work on non-concentration because twinning Protection from ______ spells would be a great and not so overpowered alternatives. Even still, I don't think you can argue that Sorcerer was stronger than Wizard and Cleric, and I really don't think we should be nerfing the strengths of Sorcerer while the strengths of Cleric and Wizard go unchanged or get buffed. There are sorcerer subclasses still not getting additional spells while the clerics not only get free spells but get better effects on those spells.
And this still should not be called twin spell, but naming convention this UA has been hit-or-miss already.
In my CoS game I've been Twinning spells like Protection from Evil and Good, Vortex Warp, and Darkvision and not really anything else. Absolutely none of my go-to spells upcast to target extra creatures, and they are the only things that have kept my party alive this long. PfEaG in particular is a game-changer if you're in a campaign with a lot of undead, fey, etc - and it's a concentration spell that's REALLY worth the sorcery points, especially at low levels when your spell slots and sorcery points are incredibly scarce.
100% agree with you on the counter spell commentary.
On twin spell, I honestly think it is still a “must have”. In fact, besides losing twin on haste and the ability to twin cantrips, it’s better. Much better.
Honestly Twinned Greater Invisibility has been so much fun. But now we’re also nerfing invisibility 😢
@@AdurnisGreater Invisibility doesnt scale, though. It doesnt work with twinned spell now.
@@InnsannaStories thanks for pointing that out. I had thought it did for some reason… in fact, the more I think about it, the limitation on spells this works with is pretty rough. It’s still amazing for mind whip, hold person, fly, invisibility, and the new jump spell.
The new Twinned is very good with Banishment and Hold Monster especially
I always enjoy TM's videos immensely. This one especially, because I was fortunate enough to be one of the players casting Counter Spell in the session he mentions. I think the PT version is much more balanced than the 2014 version for both players and DMs.
You're welcome for that bend luck!
I honestly don't know how the design team could expect to nerf abilities and also to see high satisfaction scores on the nerfed abilities.
WotC are, on the whole, pretty smart (putting aside OGL nonsense). I'm hoping that they are fully aware this, and have planned accordingly. Best case scenario, they say 'we know it's unpopular but it's good for the game and you can always use the old version if you want'. It's also possible that they will pull back very slightly from this version, perhaps finding a compromise position which gives us the fixed versions but also feels like a side-grade rather than a strict downgrade. I'm sure these surveys are partly about building hype and marketing so hopefully they don't read too much into it.
In contrast to my reservations on counterspell I'm all for the new twinned spell changes. That seems like a perfectly good way to keep the feel of twin spell, by having it only work with the spells designed for that kind of effect.
I *am* hoping that they change a few more spells to add targets with upleveling, I think there are a number of spells that could be given extra target upleveling that currently are disappointing bc they don't do anything extra when up-leveled. And if they wanted to loosen twin spell a little further and let it work with basically any cantrip the way it used to that could be fun? But even if they didn't do either of those things, they could print this change as is and I'd be happy
I think they should also add a 6th level spell “Greater Counterspell” that works like the 2014 version. Then we can have the best of both worlds
I find people's reactions to the new twinned spell really odd because when I first saw it, I thought that it probably needed an increase in the cost of sorcery points. It's pretty darn good especially when you consider that there's been a trend in giving spells an upcast benefit that didn't previously have one.
I think it really goes to show how much people suffer from mental blinders to the big picture. "You took my toy away so I don't even care that you gave me a different version of said toy that's also awesome in its own right! I'm gonna be mad anyway"
I think the cost is about where it needs to be, since the idea is to give the upcast at a discount, and with the changes to sorcery point and spell slot conversion, two points might overdo it.
@@MegaZed The problem is that for some spells I agree, but for other spells this version of twinned spell is more overpowered than the old version.
@@dwil0311 That has been a trend this whole playtest. Power creep here, nerf there, boost this ability to the sky, cut this ability to the ground, all in the name of balance. People will disagree on which abilities each of those descriptors fit but chances are they have an ability in mind for each one.
Because it hurts the uniqueness of Sorc if its just an upcasting thing now. Sure it still exists but in a capacity where more or less any caster could do it.
I totally agree with you on twinned spell.
The change is a great compromise that makes Twin spell feel like twinned spell while still giving a boost to sorcerers using it.
I disagree with Counterspell though.
I have never heard of that 4th level psychic lance spell until today, and I don't really value it personally, but even with that it's better than the new counterspell because it deals damage and takes away an enemy's whole turn rather than just one action. That is definitely worth a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot. Oh and it's 120 ft range so it can sit outside of either 2014 or playtest 7 counterspell.
The new Counterspell is literally a reaction and a 3rd level spell slot to make an opponent lose their current action - if they fail a con saving throw. That is 1st level spell territory with spells like Command, Tasha's Hideous laughter, etc.
I'd rather let the opponent cast their fireball and I expend a 1st level spell slot for absorb elements. Then I can lob my fireball right back at them - or my lightning bolt - or twin haste the two fighters in the party.
I will concede the current counterspell is so good it's necessary - but it literally is trade one spell slot and a reaction for another spell slot and action/bonus action/reaction - and for a 3rd level spell slot that's fair. Could it use a bit of a nerf? Yeah probably, but this current version is not worth a 3rd level spell slot in my eyes. Compare to Haste which doubles speed and gives an extra action, compare with Fireball or Lightning bolt which is 8d6 damage to multiple creatures, compare to fly which gives 60 ft movement virtually everywhere , compare to Spirit Guardians which can do so much passive damage it's not even funny.
You need DMs to be able to curb a murderhobo party that doesn't care how big the room is they cast fireball. You need players to be able to be able to fight against dickish dms that want to cast big mean 9th level spells against a 5th level party.
And there are ways around counterspell - such as subtle spell, being outside the range, or upcasting to force a less than like 50 percent roll off (which then someone with silvery barbs can push for disadvantage on, etc. while the other side can guidance/bardic inspire).
In your archmage example - the archmage fails the saving throw to cast a 9th level spell - they still have the 9th level spell slot. Unless you're gonna kill the archmage in 1 round (admittedly doable for a few optimized builds) what's stopping them from doing it next round? In which case you're gonna waste another 3rd level spell slot for them to maybe roll bad again? Nah. I'd rather go boom, spell slot expended for a spell slot expended.
The new counterspell doesn't even have an option for upcast. It's bad and I will kill it in my survey.
Scenario:
A hostile sorcerer casts Fireball using its Action.
An ally wizard casts Counterspell.
The sorcerer fails its Constitution saving throw; its spellcasting process is interrupted, but the spellslot is not expended not the caster counts as having cast a leveled spell this turn.
Can the sorcerer uses Quickened metamagic and casts Fireball using its bonus action? I think so.
The change to Counterspell makes the choice between War Caster and Resilient Con more interesting as well (assuming there are no changes to these feats). War Caster helps with concentration saves but isn’t going to help you against Counterspell, where Resilient Con protects both.
Honestly, the interaction with Legendary Resistance is the BEST PART of this change!
FINALLY you can't completely shut down the final boss using a 3rd-level Reaction with nothing they can do about it!
It got to the point as a DM where I had to give my casters counterspell for the sole purpose of countering counterspell.
Just robe the casters of their reaction. Shocking grasp does it, making a wizard cast shield also eats that reaction. Make your liches Sorcerers rather than wizards all the time and have them use subtle spell.
If you're just throwing a wizard out there by themselves with not battle plan in front of a party; of course they're going to get whacka moled
Also casting spells at 4th level to bait out the highest level counterspell.
@@TheDragonOfWhii think most dm's agree it is not fun to have to play around counterspell everytime you want a monster casting a cool spell.
One compromise i could see on counterspell is giving disadvantage on the check if he spellslott used for the counterspell is of higher lv
Or just keeping the trend of not giving monsters spell slots.
I have to say I do prefer the old twinning option, as while it is expensive for a higher level slot and sometimes a bargain on the low level it has great flexibility, and that you can make that choice to use it on the wide range of high level spell you might know is a good thing - it may not be obviously optimal in all cases but the game is so situational there are times you will really want to spend those sorc points. And once you burn them they are gone, its a choice you had to make - those 5 points to duplicate hold might well make sense despite the high cost, as its a real game changer if it works, to the extent is really shouldn't be the playtest 7 versions level of cheap!
I also personally don't think 2014 twin spell is so much better than all the other meta magic's, absolutely strong but that is also true of many other metamagic, As when you make the choices for metamagic options you should be picking the ones that match your other choices - twin spell is useless if you don't have spells to twin and the other metamagics are similarly rewarding if you pick the right options!
My man, I usually DO NOT vote, but I for sure will on this one. Thanks for letting me know. Can't have counterspell not addressed.
One of the big problems with the surveys are that DMs are significantly outnumbered by players, so anything that balances the game through a perceived 'nerf' is going to have an uphill battle. I like both the new counterspell and twinned spell. Odds are when the dust settles, I'll put together a Frankenstein of the changes from the various playtests I prefer as 5.OZ and use that, and both of these will be in that.
1) *twining* should be specifically for spells that never hit two target even when up cast. Gonna say a flat 4 sorcery points is a fair price.
2) the new “twin” needs a different name, or different mechanic
I recommend:
*Bolster Spell* : 2points
For any upcast able spell cast that does the upcast of one level higher. Spell level technically the same for counter spell, dispel magic, etc.
Yeah both will get a very satisfied from me. Balancing spells and CR ratings are two of the biggest needs for one D&D. These are good changes. Next we need Shield, Silvery Barbs, Spirit Guardians, Conjurer Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Polymorph, Mass Suggestion, Force Cage, Simulacrum, True Polymorph, Mass Heal, and Wish.
You make a very clear argument as to why these two are not as powerful as before but otherwise better than they were before. Your argument as to why having more viable options, more choice, more playability is such a wonderful thing to hear. The community sure is lucky to have ya.
Can Twin Spell not be used to up level spells multiple times by spending as many sorcery points as you like? Does this need to clarified?
While I was watching you brought up the 2014 version of Twin Spell and I got confused for a second and thought, that's not the playtest version of Twin Spell is it? I remember it being better than that.. I feel that Twin Spell though obviously not as powerful as it was, would with this version generally be more useful, allowing more choice when it comes to sorcery point expenditure.
Counterspell arguments make it appear likely to be more impactful in game play. Possibly saving your team a round when things could otherwise have gone quite sideways, especially with higher level combats. Subtle, but impactful. Just the way counterspell should be maybe.
I love that this channel has a reputation for measured takes. The objective approach is way better to watch than someone who over reacts. Thanks for bringing up so many examples in addition to the math to make your points.
Great video Chris. Hope it makes a difference.
Crawford also said there will be more spells that will have the ability to be upcast to target an additional creature. That will provide even more options for the new twinned spell. I hope they add haste to that list.🤞
Haste likely will, and if it is, that'll just add frustration and irony because the biggest complaint people had was that Twinned Spell shouldn't be allowed to be used on concentration spells because that's too broken.
At least if Haste can be upcast, non-sorcerers who get it will also be able to target multiple creatures eventually and Twin Spell will just be the earliest and most efficient way.
@@KevinVideo Haste isn't even a very strong spell. It feels good to use, but is basically just equivalent to being a bundle of the benefits of a few nonconcentration level 1 and 2 spells in most practical use cases. (Unless you use the popular homebrew of Extra Attack working with the added action.) Slow is the cooler base game time magic (overcoming at least two targets' saving throws is about the same impact, which shouldn't be too hard targeting four to six targets).
Hast is a strong spell it gives the character you cast on a +2 extra to AC 10 extra feet of movement an extra attack cast on two characters that are built right over a minute of time they can due about 500 to 700 extra points of damage so is OP. The reason why I would like to be either Upcast or Twine is it gives someone who plays a caster a way to make friends with other characters and they have a reason to PROTECT CASTER and to not get in your way when You cast an AREA EFFECT SPELL so you can better CONTROL the BATTLE. The caster job description is CONTROLLER. If you have played at gaming conventions or adventure league modes at gaming stores it is hard for people to play as a team this spell helps and ALLOT so let it be upcast or twined that is if your ideal of Dungeons and Dragons is a cooperative team game and NOT A FREE FOR ALL.
@@karlelges8800 You still have to expend an action to cast it, so it's best when used with teamwork effecting others. Helping other party members is a good thing for a spell to encourage, but you're still giving up crowd control, big multitarget damage, and other such effects that turn. Plus, expecting a battle to both last all 10 turns and for the Sorcerer's concentration to not get interrupted in such a drawn out combat (striking the targets with the huge risk/reward lethargy element of the spell), is overwhelmingly optimistic. Theory crafted scenarios and actual play are totally different things. Most of the time, the extra action from Haste is better off used tactically like a temporary form of Thief Rouge's Cunning Action than it is as a damage boost. Damage stacking gimmick builds are just clickbait. (Also, if you want a real one, try upcasted Scorching Rays and/or Eldritch Blasts cast with upcasted Spirit Shroud active. Shotgun Mage.)
After listening to your case for the new Twin Spell, I think it is more reasonable than it sounds at first reading. Two things stand out to me, though.
1) It feels like a poor argument to say that it's okay that there are not many first level Sorcerer spells that work with Twin Spell because multiclassing exists. I've seen tables that don't allow multiclassing, and either way, a Sorcerer class feature should stand on its own and have options for a single classed Sorcerer. If picking Twin Spell locks you into a very specific first level spell pick to be able to use the feature, that's just as much of a problem as Forcecage making other Mystic Arcanum choices not worth considering. (Even better would be for Twin Spell to let you pick a first level spell that can be affected by it as a bonus spell known, to ensure that you can't accidentally leave yourself in a situation where you have a metmagic option you literally can't use.)
2) It's true, the 2014 Twin Spell is easily a top pick for metamagic. Other than a few specific spells that combo with Twin Spell extremely well, however, I'd argue that's much more a factor of how underwhelming the other choices feel than anything else. I'd much rather see all the other metamagic options brought up closer to 2014 Twin Spell's level than the reverse. Metamagic is probably a significant part of why you're taking Sorcerer levels instead of Wizard anyway, so they really ought to be rather class defining.
Balance is important but so is fun. Twin spell has lead to some of the best moments at my table and almost zero bad ones.
Than I would assume you like the new counterspell? In my experience counterspell and counterspell chains has been some of the most unfun things in the game.
For Twinned Spell. I like the direction, but I like twinning the few damage spells we have access to that qualify. Chromatic Orb is one. Only costs 1 SP to Twin and is very "showy". Current playtest version doesn't allow twinning Chromatic Orb (or any attack spells that qualify). Blasters blast and twinning a blast means more blasts for blasters.
Counterspell is doing well, but I've stated before, on another video, how it's not an equal trade. I do like how it's not auto counter, upcasting has zero effect, and that it's a saving throw. I'll burn a Legendary Resistance in the first round (how is my character to know what tf Legendary Resistance is?) against a Lich.
What I don't like about playtest counterspell is there is no consequence, and hardly a price, to being counterspelled. The target doesn't lose the slot, only the action. You've lost a reaction and a slot. That's not a fair trade.
Just to mention one more thing about whether this is "useless" against creatures with legendary resistance. The universal strategy against those creatures is to make them use up those resistances as fast as possible. Counterspell is a reaction spell, if the enemy uses up one of its legendary resistances before you've even had your turn that's a good thing and you're way closer to an opponent that's out of resistances
Well, my strategy was twinning Haste on the two martials in my party and avoid save-or-suck spells. However, with the updated Counterspell, it might become a viable strategy to burn through Legendary Resistances despite only having 1-2 full casters in the party.
True
Yes and no, if you counterspell them dropping a massive spell like dominate person and they pass with legendary resistance I don't think anyones going to be celebrating the dropping of one of their LR as your friends now beating your face in under dominate. Disintegrate being LR through your counterspell and now the players dust and uh.. well they are down a LR. Given some of his situations like the archmage than yes the new ones pretty good since its not a gamble, and hitting monsters with LR with mild spells that they than burn a LR to resist is also an upside
Unless there's some errata I've missed, you 100% can twin ice knife RAW. Maybe not RAI, which seems to be the only version Crawford knows (like when he says you can't twin dragon's breath), but RAW there's nothing in TS about AOEs having anything to do with it. Sage Advice recommends it as a way to identify twinnable spells, but the PHB does not.
The thing you’re missing is the way the game defines “target.” It’s not a thing in the spell statistics, it’s determined as a result of the spell’s effects - the targets of Fireball are every creature affected by the Fireball. Because Ice Knife has an AOE effect, it is capable of targeting more than one creature and is therefore ineligible for Twinned Spell. The game doesn’t distinguish between initial effects and rider effects; Ice Knife doesn’t work for the same reason Magic Missile and Fireball don’t work.
@GreyGramarye false. The spell descriptions state whom those spells target. Otherwise you couldn't twin haste because then the "not targets" can attack multiple "targets".
I've never had an issue with any of the changes to twinned spell. Maybe it's cuz I just never loved the flavour of it or whatever, so even though it was technically most powerful I didn't use it very often.
Counterspell, on the other hand, I'm quite sad about. I could maybe be convinced on the saving throw vs ability check (though I'll be honest, this video didn't really do that for me) but I'm not sure I'll ever be convinced about the target not losing their spell slot.
To me, a big part of why I don't like the saving throw, is because it shifts the onus of strength from the caster to the target. (Yes, I know the caster's save DC does go up as they level/increase in CR, but still) meaning that now, sure, more powerful casters, both player and non-player are harder to counterspell (their stated motivation), but before, every time you gained a new level of spell slot, and were able to just shutdown even more powerful spells, that felt epic. And similarly, when you're facing off against an enemy, and they counterspell like a fifth or sixth level spell without needing to do an ability check, you knew you were up against something powerful.
In this new version, regardless of what any math says about how technically "powerful" it is, it just feels worse to use, and I likely won't ever use it again, even if mathematically I still should be. Cuz while I do care about some level of balance, this game isn't just a spreadsheet to me, and the flavour of spells, and the flavour of their mechanics, also matter.
So many of the complaints I see on the counterspell change is people saying they wouldn't take it now (GOOD!) while completely ignoring that the change applies to when an enemy casts too. Parties without a counterspeller don't have to worry about it as much. Nothing sucks like getting counterspelled.
I think removing twinned spell and just making this version a general 'empowered' metamagic that upcasts using sorcery points would be neat. You could then have 2014 twinned spell appear at like level 14 or whenever the sorcerer is needing a boost Vs the wizard again. But yeah twinned spell is too good, it just feels less so comparing to outlier spells.
On that counterspell does need reigning in and I think this works with previous thoughts I had. Counterspell should give a resource or action advantage, not both and I think the fail mechanism is more streamlined if agnostic of spell levels involved (maybe up the DC for upcasting and the opposing creature gets a bonus to save for each level over 3 and a more general action that interrupted magic actions with components or modified other actions looking at a spell level or proficiency bonus of the creature would be great).
This is ultmately how I feel about the new Twinned Spell. I like it but yea it feels like you are empowering a spell instead of twinning it. I can agree with dropping it and renaming this to be the new Empowered or really Heightened Spell. Could even keep Empowered/Heightened the same but rename this to Boosted Spell.
I personally never used Twinned Spell much. It never fit many of my Sorceror builds
The new twinned is by no means underpowered, but it just feels a little bit vanilla. Any caster can do the same thing as long as they have the required spell slot. With the old rules, no one else could do the things a sorcerer could do with twinned spell, and it made it unique and fun.
The twinned spell is a no brainer, it's ridiculous to complain about it, but counterspell is not so easy. It will really depend what creatures the DM uses. People usually play within circles and with the same DM, so presenting a large average is not going to matter for them, and it's important because they will make a decision in the survey based on their personal experience. Assuming players are usually playing released modules, I don't think counterspell is that much of an issue. I didn't realize at first that it requires a con save as a 3rd lvl spell against a 9th lvl spell, instead of the 2014 version of upcasting it in order to contest the cast. That is very strong. In a lot of cases it will be a straight up buff ( for example, all the monsters you presented, the new counterspell would be a buff ). Great video!
Not feeling that you have to burn your highest level spell slots on Counterspell is a huge improvement of the experience of playing a spellcaster. Now you can actually expect to use your new shiny toys you pick up when you get access to higher level spells.
@@SortKaffe people seem to forget how much DMs could metagame against Counterspell by using 4th level spells.
@@BramLastname Or just modules and the Monster Manual. NPCs and monsters tend to have higher level spells for their CR than player characters of the same level. And for boss encounters you're even using creatures of higher CR than the party, so even higher level spells. More often than not, enemy Fireballs and Lightning Bolts default to being upcasted as written written in their statblocks or module notes.
@@Shalakor I'm gonna be honest I don't use enough spellcasters to know whether or not they are using higher level spells a lot.
@@BramLastname Which is also true of most of the people complaining about this idea for changing Counterspell. Admittedly, I (and this TH-camr, not that he never gets anything wrong) probably know more of the mechanics of 5E than is reasonable to expect as the baseline for anyone playing it. And my observations are partially anecdotal, too.
I had the negative knee jerk reaction to counterspell when I first saw it. But you have convinced me. The weak con saves of caster monsters looks promising indeed. Delaying monster's spell casting by one turn is almost as good as wasting his slot. I have no idea how many slots the monster has. Monster isn't going to be continuing it's work day after the encounter with his spell slots still intact. But my spell slots as a player on the other hand is so very important. I very likely will be continuing my work day and getting to keep that spell slots after being targeted by a counterspell will be so much better than having lost it.
I still don’t know if I’m completely sold on the new counterspell. I went in already agreeing with the large majority of what you had to say, it needed the nerf and most of the nerfs are well in line to what it should be.
I do think the weight of the con save and legendary resistances are a little undersold still. Does it account for things like dragons with the spellcaster template? Or a module specific boss like Strahd? It also doesn’t account for homebrew (understandably so I will emphasize) or even just tweaked existing stat blocks that people are gonna use for their big bad bosses, where this change is gonna be felt the most.
But even then that’s not really a deal breaker. What sucks is when I do succeed despite all those defenses and it barely matters. The 1 round delay is just not enough, if it even makes it to that round. It may not be common but I’d hate to get counterspell off only for the bad guy to spend some legendary actions and cast it anyway. Or if I counterspell after going through the effort of burning legendary resistances and lowering their save etc. and aligning the stars for a low roll… but it doesn’t matter because their next turn comes around and they cast it again and it was only luck that we got it the one time. I don’t think Mind Whip or Psychic Lance are proper comparisons either. The cost of an action and that of a reaction are so different. And they aren’t nearly as pigeonholed into the role of delaying casters as you made it sound. Incapacitating is a condition that’s good to slap on any threat, not to mention the damage and the whole mechanics around the Naming of the target to hit out of site enemies and give them a worse save. It’s a Lot more than the delay that this counterspell is.
I think at Least it should keep the spell from being recast for a couple more turns. My initial thought was 1d4+1 rounds. And I’m sure there’s more tweaking needed, like maybe only one spell can be offline at a time. But for a third level spell slot it needs to have more oomph than that. That said, this as is would be a good template for a martial counter to spells. Maybe slap it on the mage slayer feat.
Also lol at wasting counterspell on Time Stop. If a mage wants to waste their 9th level slot on the worst Level to effect ratio in the game they are more than welcome to. Unless there’s a timed MacGuffin in play it’s not worth the reaction, even if you gave me the third level slot for free 😂
" The 1 round delay is just not enough" I don't understand this take at all. Eliminating an action with your reaction is huge. Action economy is the most important factor in combat. Even if they use a LA to cast the spell, they could have cast 2 spells and instead they only get 1.
I loved these changes to counterspell and twinned spell, specially twinned spell. I have a personal issue with counterspell, because you don't know, in theory, what spell is being cast without identify it first. You can use your action or reaction to "Identify a Spell", XGE, p. 85, and make an Arcana check to it, if your table is using this optional/variant rule. But notice here that you have only one reaction, so you can't identify the spell and counterspell simultaneously. If you are the party's spellcaster, probably you have good Arcana checks, but you can't identify by your own using your unique reaction, so you will need another member to make it for you, or you have to identify it and other person will cast counterspell. Counterspell is normally used as a metagame spell, where you will use this spell when you know that the casting of it will be worth. As a DM I say that "you see the enemy casting something", and the players will decide what to do about this. That's why I don't think counterspell is a "must have" spell as everyone says online, and even I don't think it is broken considering that most of time players will not know what spell is going to be cast (for exemple, I had a funny experience where the enemy vampire spellcaster said to the wizard that he liked him and the wizard would be the last one to be killed. I described "you see that the vampire is casting a spell, he is looking at the wizard!", the wizard counterspelled a Fog Cloud - and he only discovered the spell because the vampire later on said to him - and this situation is more common than it looks). Also, the old version of counterspell is hard to work against higher level spells, normally the player will fail the ability check. That's said, I think the new version of counterspell is healthier to the game, and the enemy caster now having to make their CON saving throw adds more mystery, because players will not even know the level of the spell being cast without identify it.
Maybe the survey asks: "If either the con save OR not expending the spell slots needs to stay, which would you pick?" That would be a middle ground I can settle for.
Well the con save removes the mind game element where DMs would bait out counterspells using 4th level slots
And not losing the spellslot fixes the issue of the Warlock getting counterspelled as soon as they cast anything that isn't eldritch blast.
Agree, this is good design. I really, really hope they are changing the worst offenders, too, Conjure Animals... And then it is probably up to us to not just say no, so thanks for the lobying, soldier on, please.
Maybe counterspell should consume the slot of the caster, if it is cast at the same or higher level (as in the old version automatic success)
This needs to be clarified but the newer spell caster stat blocks don't have spell slots. They have either at will spells or # casts per day. Does the new CS not consume "casts per day"? The wording of the spell doesn't mention them only spell slots.
To be fair, I just like twinning damage spells and the ability check that counterspell does. The rest of counterspell is great, I just personally don't like the saving throw. I think if it's going to remain a saving throw, it should be a saving throw for the spellcasting ability modifier of the target creature.
i think you made some great examples for the new twinned spell and indeed, there shouldn’t be a metamagic that is just so overpowerd that every Sorc MUST take it. for it to be a more “niche” is better imo. or like you said that it is in line with the others
I disagree, but mostly because Twin was a must have because most of their meta-magics were BAD.
It might be an acceptable change, but I don't think it will ever be a necessary one
I honestly don't mind the Twinned Spell change, since it was very powerful. Only thing I am going to miss about it is twinning damage cantrips. But I do think they should rename it, what it does now isn't really twinning, maybe it should just be like 'spreading spell' since it only targets 1 additional target.
In fact maybe they should make a metamagic called "Upcast spell" which lets you cast ANY spell at a spellslots of a higher level, though you can't really justify something like that for every spell at the cost of only 1 sorcery point.
I think my issue with twinned spell is whether 1 point is enough of a cost. I get that going from a level 2 hold person to level 3 means you’re burning a level 2 plus 1 sorcery point. But I’m not sure if twinning a banishment should be a 4th plus 1 sorcery point.
I mean creating a spell usually costs 2 more than the previous level. Two for a 1st, 3 for a 2nd, then 5 for a third, 7 for a 4th and 9 for a 5th.
Seems like twinned should be 2 not 1
Twinned Spell would be an almost redundant metamagic option if it didn't give you something better than what you could mostly replicate by just converting Sorcery Points to Spell Slots. From 1st to 2nd level spell slots, the cost only increases from 2 to 3 Sorcery Points, so it would feel especially bad when you first pick up Metamagic. Just because it was prohibitively expensive at high levels before, doesn't mean it should now be prohibitively expensive at low levels.
Fortunately, WotC seems to go in the opposite direction with Heightened Spell having its cost reduced from 3 to 2 Sorcery Points, which makes it more viable at low levels,
For counterspell, my only complaint is there’s no benefit to upcasting. Perhaps a per lvl +1 bonus to dc, a per 2lvl upcast gives 1 round of the spell that was countered being uncastable, or expend the target spell slot if the spell slot used to cast counterspell is a higher lvl.
How would you feel about the counterspell rebalance if it did expend the spell slot? If it has all of the current changes (con save, etc) but still expended the target's spell slot? Do you think it would fail at rebalancing counterspell enough?
Bc I see your argument using psychic lance and I understand, but incapacitated is more debilitating than you let on. It auto breaks concentration, it wasted both action AND bonus action, it has the flexibility of preventing a multi-attack monster from getting in a bunch of hits, etc. And while the damage isn't the reason to cast the spell, but it also isn't nothing. Psychic lance has higher upside and less downside (if I fail, at least I still get *some* damage and the chance to break concentration that way). Yes, the comparison still isn't perfect bc it's a higher level spell, but the analogy not being as clear as you describe is my point.
As a mid level player, I really don't think I want to cast a spell where the *best* I can hope for is spending a reaction and one of my higher spell slots just to cost an opponent an action and nothing else. Feeble mind is still *devastating* one round later. I'm ok with monsters and players alike having a chance to resist. And I'm ok with legendaries coming into play, let the legendary monsters be scary (and wasting a legendary as a reaction is actually an interesting wrinkle if you have to burn through legendaries). But given the cost of what is a higher level slot for most characters in their careers, I think it should do more on a success and still expend the target's slot.
Also for the sake of consistency, since it still expends item charges or non slot per day usages, etc.
The NPC mage would also burn the player's highest level spell slots with Counterspell then, which just isn't fun.
As long as I have spell slots to spare, I would try to delay Feeble Mind in the hope that we can down the mage before they get it off.
@@SortKaffe I don't mind that as a PC tho, especially if I have something I can do about it now like make the CON save
That's a good point about breaking concentration with psychic lance.
Loveing the updated video transitions and editing. Very clean!
Regarding the Bonus Action and Misty step thing.
The trigger of the reaction of Counterspell IS someone casting a spell, so the spell IS cast. What counterspell does is changing the resolution of the spell... so no bonus action to cast an extra spell.
How is the spell cast if the spell slot isn't burned?
The spell cast is interrupted, meaning it's never finished.
@@andrewshandle It makes more sense that because your spell was interrupted you can suddenly cast another spell.
The fact that you don't lose the spell slot is because of the "feel bads" of not getting to use the spell that Counterspell creates... which for high level spells it's pretty bad.
@@estebanrodriguez5409 your logic makes no sense logically though, if you were interrupted before you finished, it was never cast. Forget the "feels bad" part, just mechanically it's wrong. If I try and buy a candy bar from a store and the credit card payment is interrupted and money never changed hands and I don't get the candy bar, you'd never say the sale went through. The sale doesn't happen until money (a spell spot) is traded for a good (the effect of the spell).
Stopping something from being cast means it's never cast. It's pretty simple logic.
@@andrewshandle Your analogy is not relevant because bank transactions aren't the rules of the game... it would be EXACTLY like saying "In Magic the Gathering Counterspells work this way"
to prove my point.
By the same logic, you can't interrupt something that was never casted.
The spell was already casted otherwise the trigger wouldn't work. And it's already such a core thing that you can't use more than one slot spell per turn to create such a needlesly obtuse cornerstone case.
@@estebanrodriguez5409 I'd say my analogy is spot on, casting a leveled spell has a cost, if it's interrupted, it's never cast.
If it was cast, it couldn't be interrupted because the spell would be finished. You're just wrong on this.
Easy way to placate those worried about twinned spell, just make more spells upcastable to target multiple creatures. Like Haste could hit an extra person for every two slots above 3rd and Id still use it. Especially with twinned.
I absolutely agree that new twinned spell is still worth having - and in the video you only listed the spells you knew about but they've said they intend to add upcasting to spells that didnt previously have it (like jump) so I'm getting a feeling spells like haste that were always fun to twin since you couldn't otherwise achieve that effect, are going to gain upcasting and thus become twinnable. When it comes to counterspell I'm super happy to see it nerfed and I honestly think its in a great spot. And dnd absolutely needs this - as me and my friends often put it when talking about D&D, theres a lot of "win buttons" and "dont lasers" and now the KING of dont lasers is fixed.
Such good arguments, how could I resist? Jokes apart, great video!
The new Twinned spell is very well balanced, but I'm still not sure about Counterspell. Optimized players will fare better than most monsters, and that's strange but cool. The only "fear" I have is that either published monsters or homebrewed monster will try to out-race the spell, end up with a Con saving throw of +18 and be impossible to stop.
This is also an indirect nerf of Glibness, Abjurer Wizards and Jack of All Trades
15 seconds in and I'm already 100% on board. This version of Counterspell is GREAT.
It's decent, I think it needs to block the same spell being cast again for a few rounds or something though. Maybe = mod, or 1d6 rounds or something. A creature just casting the same spell again with a legendary action is gonna feel bad. An extra delay would make this version fine though.
I think that - for the sake of both players and monsters - the current Counterspell saving throw shouldn't be Constitution, but whatever ability score the creature uses for its spellcasting. Perhaps a Constitution if no ability score is provided (ex. magic items).
This makes sense thematically, but is actually an even bigger nerf of counterspell, as this saving throw is guaranteed to be strong where Constitution may not be as high in a lot of spell casting monsters.
I know, but I think any caster should have a scaling mechanic to avoid being counterspelled, since the DC will typically scale. This nerf also makes it easier for players to avoid being counterspelled too. I believe that the current counterspell is actually too powerful against archmages and similar monsters; 60-70% chance of wasting their action. Depending on the table, you can counterspell the counterspell, but I've noticed that a fair amount of DMs don't allow that (myself included) and it only leads to more "counterspell wars".
Re: Counterspell..... Don't mind the target getting their spell slot back, for players this is probably a good thing. My only issue is that taking away the check on the players part takes the action away from the player. Much more fun if the player wants to counterspell and the effect is tied to their role. Rather than a save from the creature.
I dont mind the changes, I like the twinned spell change but the counterspell change needs some work, not balancewise but designwise. The nature of counterspell working automatically for lower level spells was wonderfull. Its not a huge impact but it makes the caster feel amazing.
The main problem I have with it is that there is no upcasting. With the last version, there was some choice and interesting dynamics when casting counterspell. You needed to try and guess the spellslot the enemy used to try and make it work automatically, and it made it a mind game. Exactly what wizard fights should be about, mind games and predicting your opponent.
Now you just cast it, no thinking. There is no benefit of casting with higher level spell slots. This removes player choice and is boring. I dont think the new counterspell is too weak, but I do think it is not as fun, which is the most important thing to me.
Also, losing a third level spellslot and the target succeding anyway feels awfull, at least psychic lance deals half damage so you dont feel like you just wasted a spellslot. I would like to see at least some effect even if the target saves, just so it doesnt feel like a huge waste.
I absolutely agree that both of these changes are good. I hope to see some spell changes to other spells to make them compatible with the new twins spell, and but other than that, no complaints.
The 2014 twinned spell helped the Sorcerer be a fun spell blaster. Improving the new Sorcerer abilities to help the Sorcerer be an effective blaster will offset the nerf to twinned spell.
They could also create new blast spells that work with the new twin spell. Witch Bolt needs improvement anyway. They could create a new version of Witch Bolt that works with the new Twin Spell.
Another thing to mention with Counterspell and not burning the spell slots:
The monsters who cast spells in Monster of the Multiverse don't use spell slots. They use "1/day," "2/day," "At will," etc. Nothing within the rules of Counterspell says that those 1/day uses aren't burned when Counterspell shuts down the spell, so it's still REALLY good against the "newer design" monsters.
Yes, the not losing a spellslot part is specifically targeting player characters as Warlocks immensely benefit from this change,
While most monsters do not.
Oh, I just came on to say that same thing.I should have read more comments, first :)
The downside is that Feats that grant PCs 1/day no-slot uses could also be affected (e.g. Feytouched etc)
I wonder if that was their intent, or not?
@@eraz0rhead that is intentional,
Those features are supposed to be the "save or suck" of spell slots,
They're extra features you can use.
And those mainly affecting Casters makes it so they often don't really miss it anyways.
@@BramLastname You have more faith in the designers foresight than I do. It might be intentional.. or it might be clunky wording that overlooked a category of resources. Given the large number of holes in wording this channel turns up in every playtest, I'm on the fence about whether this was intended.
🤷
@@eraz0rhead let's say it like this,
Based on how they specifically mentioned "if this was cast using a spell slot"
I conclude they did consider the possibility it wasn't cast with a spell slot.
Even if they have legendary resistances! Burning a legendary resistance using a reaction spell is SICK.
Why would they use a legendary resistance when they keep the spell? I don't mind the con save. I don't particularly mind the lack of updating options. I do mind that command halt is a better counterspell than counterspell as it currently stands. A third level spell slot should be removing more enemy resources than 1st level slots can. Either add damage on a fail so we get *something* for a sucess or keep the expended spell slot part of the old one.
IMO Abjurer wizards should be just as effective at Counterspelling as any Sorcerer with Heightened Spell meta-magic. It does seem like there should be some upcasting mechanic/benefit too. Also it feels like the War Caster feat should help defend against being Counterspelled.
This might slow down gameplay, feel too crunchy, or just be ineffective, but perhaps your spell save DC increases by the difference in spell slot levels of the spell and the counterspell..? Eh idk lol
The way the playtest twinned spell is worded, seems like what heightened spell should do. Spending a sorcery point to bump up the level of a spell without expending a higher slot. When you say 'twinned' people are going to expect a doubling, not a bump to the level of a spell. Seems like mostly a naming problem.
I’m surprised your analysis didn’t account for upcasting counterspell…isn’t that what everyone does for shutting down higher than third level spells?
In the example, a 10th level PC wouldn't have a 9th-level spell slot to counter Time Stop. Even if they had, it sucked to cast Counterspell instead of Wish so I'm glad that the proposed change makes it obsolete to upcast Counterspell.
I find that often player characters are facing creatures that cast higher level spells, so upcasting counterspell to that level isn't really possible.
@@TreantmonksTempleThat's been my experience as well. The players usually cannot match the spell level on the really big spells.
One criticism of the new Counterspell that I sympathize with is taking roll away from the player casting it and giving it to the target, even if I understand the reasoning behind it. I do like how the spell stands in the newest UA, but I wonder how it would feel and how the math would work out if it was a contested check between the caster and the target rather than a saving throw or an ability check.
I’m very happy with the new Twinned, especially if they are going to introduce more upcast-able spells. On Counterspell, I like the simplified mechanic, but I’d really like to retain some way to upcast to increase my odds of success. Maybe an increase to the DC of +1 per slot?
I don't think that's necessary. It _feels_ necessary, but the math suggests that you'd be wasting the higher level slot. Since your DC already scales as you level (even if you don't put points into your casting Attribute, your prof goes up), upcasting would have reduced pay-off.
It'd become a bit of a trap, especially if you wasted your 9th level Counterspell on a +6 DC only to have the enemy use Legendary Resistance or some other thing you didn't know about to auto-succeed.
With this version of Counterspell, you're better off relying on other means to impose disadvantage or force re-rolls, or use items to grant some higher DCs..
I don't like the UA counterspell, but I also don't like the 5e counterspell so I made my own. it replaces wizard, warlock, and sorcerer's ability to make attacks of opportunities. you always make opposed spellcasting ability checks with a bonus equal to double the level of spellslot you spend on it, but you aren't required to spend a slot. I use pf2e +10/-10 crits so I made it so a crit fail upcasts the spell you were trying to counter and crit successes reflect the spell back at the caster meaning not using higher slots carries a cost.
My only thought about Twinned spell is that it's a bit hard to find spells that work with it. Some sort of tag or something would work wonders.
Agreed. But the old one was the same way. The arguments about what you can twin are eternal it seems.
I like what the new twin spell presents and want to keep it, however I still want a nova option to cast 2 spells as part of the same action. Let it cost sorcery point per level cost + 2, and drop any target restrictions. Double fireball baby, who cares if it drains all my sorcery points, it’s what’s wanted by the community
Nobody wants that. Well if somebody does want that, then they're wrong. It's fun to say "double fireballs, baby!!" But that game is not fun. It's just not good for the game.
I honestly love the fact that legendary resistance can overpower counter spell. Counterspell being able to shut down the turn of Vecna or Orcus just feels too strong. It makes PCs too capable when fighting boss monster spell casters.
So I have a larger problem that this is tied to. Chris we have had this discussion before about the power difference between Wizarc and Sorc. A large part of what made sorcs able to remain somewhat competitive vs wizard was Twin spell. Yes it was overpowered, but only for a slim number of spells and slots that the sorc had. Now it is nerfed and more balanced, which I good, but the end result is the gap between wiz and sorc has increased and they don't seem to be addressing that issue. I feel like there is no longer a reason to play the sorcerer with its blaster and tricks personality as it has lost its best trick, we were already playing with one hand behind the back simply due to those limitations especially if you didn't play the Tasha sub classes, now that just feels worse, and they don't seem like they are bringing the other sub classes up to the level of Tashas (though they are including the tashas subs). That is my thought, I understand the need to twin nerfing, but without adding something to balance the sorc all we have done is widen the gap between sorc and wizard
Great video (as always 😉)!
I am totally on board for the new Counterspell!
But the new Twinned Spell is imho too STRONG..!
Double Bannishment costs only 1 sorcery point? That's just too cheap...
Double Blindness for 1 SP might be okay. But level 3 or higher spells will be too cheap to "twin", i fear...
But okay, i'll use it 😅
Well, the playtest version of Banishment is trash, so let's see if there's anything that will feel as good as paying 4 Sorcery Points for twinning Polymorph did.
@@SortKaffeHold Monster at 5th? Though you probably benefit more from hitting one big creature with a Heightened Hold Monster than Twinning it and possibly missing your main target. Of course you could always pay the 3 Sorcery Points at that level and choose both...
My problem with the new counterspell isn't so much how often it is to work - which is always a failure chance anyway, thats not a big deal. My problem is I don't want to delay an enemy's spell, i want to consume it. I want to destroy the spell they are casting so i have cost them a resource. Delaying the meteor swarm by one round COULD be useful if you can kill them in one round. But i would much prefer to cost them the entire spell slot so they can't do it again in the next round.
Because if i'm going to expend an entire spell slot, i want to cost the enemy a resource as well, I don't want to delay them to the next round (there are spells that do that already). Why make counterspell do that? If they allowed me to cost them that resource, i would have no problem with the change to counterspell.
When i playtested the wizard just last weekend, i took the counterspell to see how it felt. Its a fine spell, but it has a 'feel bad' vibe when you use it, spend a resource, and do nothing but delay the BBEGs spell. I miss being able to cost the enemy a resource when i spent a resource.
The thing with the Lance is that you have to preempt the spell to cost them the ability to cast the spell, counterspell is a reaction to cost them the resource. And, on top of that, if we HAVE the lance, and its just as good - or similar enough - we don't need another spell that does the same thing by delaying the spellcasting. What we need is the spell that costs the enemy a resource for the price of doing nothing BUT costing the enemy a resource, the same as if you cost them hit points.
It works fine, and there is probably not even that much difference, one round either way could turn the battle, but it feels bad and is a bad vibe, the fun of counterspell for me has always been costing the enemy that spell resource because my wizard is so dope, just delaying it till the next turn where they still end up firebombing the party.. it feels bad, it doesn't feel like it was worth it and it feels like the action was wasted, because the effect is.. nebulous at best, because if they were gonna cast fireball, they are still probably going to cast fireball..
I would make one change to counterspell, I think it should prevent that spell from being cast until the end of the counter spelled casters next turn. So if I cast fire ball and bob coubterspells it I can’t cast fireball next turn either.
I just hope they maintain the ability to twin cantrips somewhere in the twinned spell metamagic. That is by and far my only gripe with the current playtest version. A cheap twinned spell to target two enemies with your bonus action still being free to misty step away is all i want.
Same. I twin Mind Sliver or Ray of Frost and then quicken AoE spells all the time.
Solid Twinned Spell analysis, helping really break down what it does why it's still worthy of the name.
I admit that, say, Twinned Cure Wounds on a Divine Soul Sorcerer is loads of fun, but definitely broken in essentially giving you a whole other casting of a spell for very cheap. I think there's still room to address that, adding a second target to a spell that can normally never have more than one target. Maybe an "Improved Twinned Spell" or "Expanded Twinned Spell" that lets you target another creature, but you divide the effect between them. So if you Twinned Cure Wounds, each target would get half the healing. Might be too weak, not sure, but an idea.
But yes, I agree with the breakdown, I think mentioned in one of the videos, that old Twinned Spell is basically "Improved Quickened Spell + Buy A Spell Slot but At A Discount," and that needs to be addressed. This seems like a precise change to bring it in line with other options, which I agree should be the goal. An attractive option, but not the hottest option at the party.
As for Counterspell. . . if the target has Legendary Resistance, you probably shouldn't be able to just shut down a chunk of it's options anyway, be that magic through Counterspell or attacks by stunning/binding/what have you. A "boss monster" with these kinds of abilities should be a tough fight where your tactics have to change, because what works on the mooks won't work here.
Again, I feel like the removal of "counts as magic for purposes of damage reduction" is to make this more clear, that certain monsters will just be "boss tier" and much harder to deal with, through Legendary Resistance, damage reduction, and/or other abilities. Instead of what we have now, where past a certain level most things have some kind of damage resistance, and you just have to have a way around it to fight them effectively. I don't think damage resistance is going away, I think it's being made a more impactful component of monster design, reserved for things that really should be extremely difficult to hurt. I'm especially thinking things like werewolves and vampires here. With the prevalence of damage resistance, they just don't feel as threatening or tough as their legends claim they should be.
This version of Counterspell fits into that, I think. If vampires still get free 18s in all their physical scores, then a vampire spellcaster is going to be notably harder to shut down than a mortal one, which fits with vampires being high-end, dangerous monsters you really need to specially prepare for in advance. And against the near godlike power of an archdevil of the hells, a simple Counterspell should be meaningless.
I duel of ordinary Wizards of comparable power, however, it could really shine, which is exactly where I feel it should. And in a group, buying even one turn where the powerful caster doesn't unleash their biggest magical power can make all the difference. Counterspell shouldn't win the fight on its own, but in conjunction with the Paladin landing a good Smite, the Rogue landing a good Sneak Attack, and the Cleric running a good buff, its impact cannot be understated.
For counter spell I would like it to operate largely like 2014 but with the ua non resource waster version or make it a ability check vs ability check. With the spell level auto counter feature still intact in either scenario.
I'd rather it be a spellcasting ability check or saving throw against the target's spell save DC. Contested checks cause congestion at the table, so having a static DC to roll against is usually better.
You made some excellent points in this video. You successfully convinced me to change my tune.
I agree with your assessment about Counterspell, I disagree with Twinned spell and my argument is one that you covered, but I just don't think you were successful in your persuasion check. I believe that the new twinned spell does not satisfy the theme of what I expect this metamagic to provide. I don't care if it's over powered or underpowered, I care that when I TWIN a spell, that it does double what the spell would have done if I didn't twin it. The new twin spell, in most cases, does not provide this.
Lots of upleveled spells that are then twinned run into the same bad feeling as a twinned bless that you think is cherry picking. Taking your example of Banishment which DOES feel like a twinned spell when you are level 7 and cast and twin it. However when I cast Banishment at 6th level and target 3 creatures, and then twin the spell so I can target 4 instead, that is exactly like the bless situation and does NOT feel like twin spell. You're argument just does not work.
A lot of players hate nerfs even if those nerfs are needed. This is one of the issues with relying so much on player feedback.
Im going to drop a very satisfied on both features but i would like to see counterspell be able to auto shutdown lower level spells with upcasting because as a player one of the most fun moments at the table was just saying i counterspell at 9th level to a power word kill or meteor swarm. I could absolutely see that coming in nerfed with only contering spells on slot lower than you cast it. Otherwise i love the new counterspell
@TreantmonksTemple
Hey I absolutely love your content! A few years ago when I was first starting D&D, I rolled a Wizard for my first character and you know who's videos I was watching :)
I find it baffling that they didn't make the counter spell target save with the spell used to cast the original spell being countered. It's a actual nerf because that ensures good casters will be using a high stat and has a fun narrative where the better caster will normally win the roll. If you're a pitent caster against a lower level caster then you'll probably win, if they are better and have higher casting stats than they will probably win.
The issue I have is that the 'caster/ martial divide' campaigners have managed to ensure that every interesting change to caster classes have been undone and nerfed. The biggest problem to casters have been outlier spells, and those do need to be nerfed but because the class has been judged based on unnerfed spells, casters are going to get class nerfs AND spell nerfs while fighter and other martials can do so much damage that casters are entirely unnecessary. As a caster you are going to have three big problems. Your class without powerful spells is weak because it was balanced based on powerful spells. There are no powerful spells because outliers have been nerfed. Finally monsters can ignore your spells so when you do get a lucky spell to land that has a major effect on the encounter, the DM will likely have a way to stop it. So videos like this are going to make casters entirely obsolete.
Lets be real, the counterspell change was done for players getting countered, not for players casting counterspell. It's already bad enough to cast a high level save or suck spell.
I agree completely. Changes like this are really good for the game as a whole, because it counteracts the power creep that is becoming Oso commonplace. Yes, it doesn’t feel great, and as a warlock-with a few sorc are really good for the game as a whole, because it counteracts the power creep that is becoming Oso commonplace. Yes, it doesn’t feel great, and as a warlock-with-a-few-sorc-levels main, twin is not as nuclear, but that’s a good thing.
Thank you for the video. The arguments you brought are REALLY AWESOME.
I knew Twinned Spell was better this way but I was still dissatisfied as it FELT it less unique. And wowiie, seeing how cheaply I can twin some spells, it's absolutely just as unique as before.
For Counterspell I was really worried about the CON save making it a terrible gamble but your list is again making a great point. There's still some worry for me since all of my experience is that we NEVER successfully interrupt concentration on an enemy spellcaster. But on the other hand this DC is easily 5 to 10 points higher. My favourite nerf looks a little different, but overall this one apparently works well better than I anticipated.
It's interesting to notice now that Quickened Spell is the best way to Counterspell now if we follow the ruling at 21:12 . If your action to cast a spell doesn't expend the slot and you can still cast a Bonus Action spell, just Quicken it and voila!
Great video, Chris! Agree 100% in both cases here. It's really hard to bring the game into balance if super powerful options aren't addressed. Twinned Haste and Twinned Polymorph sure feel good, but are just *too* good. There was a reason those spells weren't given upcast options. Giving a class a game unique ability is really nice but not if it's game breaking.
For Counterspell, I know it was too powerful the way it was but wondered if this change went too far. Because I suspected that many caster enemies had poor CON saves, that worried me less than expending a slot to delay rather than deny/deplete an enemy casting. However, remembering how bad it feels for a player to get counterspelled tipped the balance for me. I admit, the legendary resistance aspect slipped under my radar (haven't had the chance to play at a level where encountering this was likely), and it is a concern. However, that just highlights that the rest of the outlier spells need to be brought in line. If there is a spell that just wins the battle if it isn't Counterspelled, that's a problem with that spell more than a problem with Counterspell being blocked by legendary resistance.
An unfortunate part of this type of design/feedback loop is that people who feel changes are just ok or even slightly good are much less likely to express that over those who feel that the changes are in any way at all negative. People hate things they like being taken away even if it's to address other concerns they have elsewhere. I hope the designers can face the very vocal negative feedback they are likely to get and continue to address the outliers.
The only issue with Counterspell for me is that a 1st level spell is as difficult (or easy) to counter as a 9th level spell.
The fact that the target gets to keep the slot feels so-and-so. If the enemy has a big spell that might wreck us I’m just delaying it for a turn, best case scenario, but i suppose it’s not so terrible
It's fine other than I think the delay should be longer. It should lock out casting the same spell again for a few rounds. Like 1d6 or casting mod or something
@@petenell5807 not a bad idea, even 1 round or 1d4 would be fine imo
I think that both needed changes, and I'm glad that they're working on it.
That said, I think that Twinned Spell does have one other complaint that you didn't mention - namely, that it's less unique now. It's more of a feeling sort of thing, rather than a careful look at the pros and cons. It's the ability to do something unique - like twinning haste - rather than a spell that upcasts 'naturally' into multiple targets.
That can certainly be something that needs to be removed as a part of bringing the option to a sweet spot, but I think it's something to keep in mind.
I have to point this out: The Bless example is extra silly because Bless was never a Twin Spell target ANYWAY because it has three targets minimum. 😂
They're complaining that a spell that *wasn't an option* before is an option *now*
As for the Misty Step Counterspell thing, it reads to me more like how countering spells works in MTG: The spell is cast, the spell is countered, but the spell was still "casted" so everything that triggers off of cast happens regardless even if the spell now does nothing. That would mean that you can't bonus action Misty Step because you still casted a spell that turn, regardless of if it fizzled or not
Thank you for putting forward your argument for counterspell.
I admit I also had a knee jerk reaction but your arguments and evidence is sound.
My only comment is that being a ST now puts the ball in the enemy's court, while the old version was down to the player, which then felt like there was more control. The onerous was on the player to have good die rolls and min- max themselves rather than risk it on the enemies where the DM is rolling.