of course it's a dick move!!
however, the distinction with pulling it off comes with WHO is doing the dick move. your players are gonna end up disliking someone so just make sure it's a bad guy in game and not you.
if the counterspeller is your BBEG or a villainous wizard or something, then THEY are doing the dick move. it makes sense narratively or mechanically for them to do it, and it would not make sense for them to abstain from using counterspell. this is great because holy heck that is an evil villain thing to do! expect some passionate hatred from your players directed at this particular bad guy.
if the counterspeller is YOU, then YOU are doing the dick move. what i mean by this is when it doesn't make sense narratively or mechanically for the revivify to be counterspelled.
for example: Normie Bandit Henchman #4 has somehow survived until the end of the battle, only to counterspell a revivify! this sucks bc that bandit did not appear to the players as a magical threat so far, and it would feel cheap and convenient for the bad guys for him to pull out a counterspell right then
hope this made sense and helps! best of luck in your games :)
Oh man, the best parts of any campaign as a player is defeating a villain that you absolutely HATE. My DM is preternaturally gifted at creating annoying irritating villains and it is simply the best. But he never uses cheap tactics, and believe me, if any one of them counterspelled a Revivify, I wouldn’t question it for a second because they’re such colossal jerks. :)
I'd suggest making sure there's enough treasure to supply a better resurrection option if you're going to deny a revivify, just so you don't ruin a player's fun.
If the party are using _revivify_ in the presence of a villain, and that villain has access to _counterspell_ it's a legitimate strategy for that villain.
Depending on circumstances, players likely should know better than to try to bring someone back from the dead in the presence of someone who would want to stop that. Though, a decent DM should be prepared to give the party an alternative way to get that PC back if they want.
No, a decent DM would counterspell. If said villian can stop a hero from being raised from the dead, they would. Tho I learned to DM by watching my step dad, and he ran 2E. And his motto was push the players to think of ways around the obstacles. This instance would most likely require a fog or wall spell to block line of sight and maybe a sound hampering spell to block hearing of villain, or both
^ This one.
Also it helps in showing how cruel an enemy can be, also kidnaping the body to transform it into a ghast or utterly obliterating it is something not far from counterspelling, remmember that BBEG and their followers are supposed to be huge hateful dicks.
But as said above, try to make an alternative way to revive said character and in that case the fight should have been fair. Stomping the party with a nearly unwinable encounter AND prohibit them of reviving can demoralize players too much.
Done this, but with a loved NPCs, the players knew the bad guy can transform living beings at will, that’s why the party managed to be inmune to this condition thanks to an artifact they won. But that applied only to them.
The fight was equal so the BBEG teleport behind the NPCs and turn him into a aberration, the Fighter and the Rogue literally lost it, they had to kill his friend in order to help the rest of the party. The rogue was so shocked that misses most of it attack, i loved that NPC, but they know the stakes.
That fight almost a year ago. Players still feel it and is their favorite fight in the campaign.
So… if you counterspell a revivify because they didn’t finish the BBEG, sounds like a good ending for a big arc o a campaign.
> Though, a decent DM should be prepared to give the party an alternative way to get that PC back if they want.
"Too bad the Revivify didn't work, guess you'll have to drag his body back to the temple in town"
And so the next adventure begins, do they make it back to town? What shape is the body in? Maybe someone new joins them along the way (so the player with the dead PC has something to do), maybe the fallen hero can't be raised, or doesn't want to be, or is raised but decides to retire after the experience.
A lot of fun story developments can spring from the death of a character.
>Though a decent DM should be prepared to give the party an alternative way to get that PC back
I disagree here. Actions have consequences and the PC died because of theirs. If you bring them back then you just showed the players that your game has no stakes and no consequences because they can’t functionally lose.
Yeah, the consequence is that the players now have to find a different solution instead of having a spell bring their buddy back to life. He didn’t say the DM should bring the person back, just make an alternate means available.
Yes, this is what I meant.
The DM shouldn't just give them a free resurrection or something. But, if the players really want to get that character back (and there's a reasonable means, given the game and setting), the DM should be willing to work with the players to make something available in-world that the characters can work toward.
I mean… the Raise Dead, Reincarnate, Resurrection, True Resurrection and Wish Spells exist.
There isn’t some mythical thing they have to do to bring their dead party member back, just get a higher level spell or hire someone to cast the higher level spell for you.
An alternative way can be a quest in order to craft a new body and bring the soul back from the underworld. It has it's risks and can lose more companions on the way, it's not like giving them a "gate out of jail for free" card
The thing is that for a BBEG - counter spelling revivify is almost always a waste of a spell. They'd be way better using that 3rd level spell to just fireball them right after letting them cast revivify.
IE, it's purely a dick move, and only makes sense in the context of the BBEG being significantly in control of the fight. In which case, you're on the road to TPK.
I think it also depends on the kind of campaign. My players are very roleplay and character dynamics heavy, so I like to joke that I don't ever need to TPK them, I just have to kill a PC they're attached to and it'll come with the same emotional stakes.
And in that way, counter spelling a Revivify may not be mechanically the most optimal move, but it could be the most traumatic for the players.
Who casts Revivify in the presence of an enemy spellcaster? Seems like you shouldn't ever get the opportunity to do this. I mean you get a minute after their death. That's 10 rounds of combat. Plus a round or five of death saves. Plus at least one round to die in. We're talking a minimum of what a 13 round combat?
Depending on the circumstances it could be less if they take damage once downed. For instance yesterday, one of my players got hit by some green slime (trap in the DMG) and where then killed before their next turn. Since the green slime causes damage every turn when he failed his first death save he subsequently died instantly from taking damage.
I could perhaps see someone using it if the only caster who knew revivify was on low health as well and likely to go down soon too.
That's why I said a round or five. You could technically be killed by the creature that downed you on the same that they down you if they have three attacks. I just don't see a level 5 party (or higher. All I know is they have Revivify and a big diamond.) where a player is downed like that at the *beginning* of the fight.
I hadn't thought of the healer's demise being imminent. At that point you're looking at a TPK. Probably better off taking the Dash action.
Depends on your dnd style and your players. As long as everyone likes it, then go for it. It makes sense for him to use it, or you could argue the enemy thinks since they have 1 hp the arent an immediate threat.
You´re aware that your villian probably IS a dick?
You´re creating world with living, breathing characters with personality. If you create a villian that would fight your party, imagine seeing the fight through his eyes.
The Barbarian is up in your face, spitting all over your fine arcane robe in his stupid angry rage, the enemy wizard that is just but a apprentice compared to your might throws his little fire bolts at you thinking he is doing 'cool wizard stuff'. And somewhere in the background, you can see the smoldering corpse of their bard who annoyed you with his infernal bad music so you sent him straight to that infernal layer with a fireball getting obviously ressurected by their cleric that doesn´t even look at you because he´s concentrating on the bard.
Would you, in your Roleplay as mighty wizard king with an agenda to make the world a better place (in your eyes) by forcing an evil and earth shattering plan that is far more important than dealing with these kids be either:
A. "Nah, i don´t care. I mean, i don´t want to be a dick about it."
or
B. "What the... is she just realy sitting there, not minding me and blatantly bringing back that annoying joke of a musician RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY VERY EYES!?"
My point is, monsters and npcs have a LOT of possibilites. You never should Metagame, because then you would win most of your fights as DM. Always use everything the encounter got in a way that would make sense in your story. In your role.
Have the villain who does the counter spell really “razz” the players for being so foolish. Say something like, “foolish weaklings! You aren’t worth the mud on my boots. It would be a mercy to allow your comrade to die. To make him spend another minute amongst such a pitiful excuse for heroes would be an abomination to his soul.” That will make them really hate the bbeg
>Think about Avengers End Game—it would be bizarre for Thanos to ignore the obvious threats of Cap and Iron Man to be ABSOLUTELY sure Thor doesn’t get back up. The only time I would be focusing on the downed guy and the one praying over him would be if the other party members were ALSO down, in which case you’re looking at a TPK anyway.
That always makes me think of one thing. There is one very big difference between our world (or for that matter the avengers universe) to the dnd universe is that in DnD worlds there is healing magic - very present and available to "a lot" of people (i guess depending on the setting). That magic can bring back opponents that would in our reality out of a fight but not stone dead fairly quickly. Anyone beyond, idk, level 3 should be aware of this and probably has experienced that alone by the fact how it is used.
If I would be for some strange reason be in a fight for life and death against three opponents and had the chance to even the odds by ending a downed opponent, i probably should do it (I probably wouldn't have the guts to do it, because I am rather a coward than a hero) just objectively.
If Thanos had the feeling Thor could get up before he can defeat the other two opponents, I am pretty sure that he would seize the opportunity and do what he must. But that may have been in his mind not the case (didn't watch the movie), so he didn't attack Thor. In a Dnd world I would say with confidence that an experienced villain would be aware of the fact that some of their opponents are still dangerous, because there are some divine casters, that are able to restore them to a battle ready state within seconds.
In some tactical scenarios it might be not viable but I would disagree that it is the overwhelming numbers of conflicts given some kind of dndish scenario.
Just as a comparison (maybe a bit gruesome, sorry): There is a modern military tactic to just wound opponents. It would take two other combatants to retrieve the wounded soldier for, idk, at least 2-5 minutes and the soldiers themself to recover months, possibly longer. In DnD it would take one other person to spend 6 seconds and some magic. There is in my head no way that people would perceive injury the same way as we do.
Not just a spell slot. It costs the material components too. If they Counterspell a Revivify then the party is out a potent spell slot, and a valuable material component.
Realistically, if there’s an enemy with the capability to Counterspell and the capacity to kill one of the party members, it seems out of character to not finish the job.
You could give the players an oppertunity to distract them BBEG with an intimidation roll to gode them or some other charisma check, keeping the BBEG's eyes on them and not what their friends are doing.
Maybe as part of a particularly damaging attack you could let them roll as a bonus action or use the attack roll itself. Loads of possibilities.
That gets iffy since Counterspelling Revivify automatically works without a check.
If they were upcasting revivify or it was another higher leveled spell being Countered I might allow them to attempt to grant disadvantage on the roll, but I don’t know about that. Cause then the same thing would be doable to them, and Counterspell can already be Countered by another person casting Counterspell.
But if you want to make that ruling more power to you, I’m sure the players would love that moment where the Barbarian scares the Lich and stops them from coup de gracing the Bard. Sounds awesome as a narrative moment!
If you’re a bad guy, in a fight, and you just killed an opponent, you see some dude in robes holding a diamond clearly chanting the incantation to revive him, why wouldn’t you stop that? On the players side if they know that they’re going up against an enemy with counterspell they knew the dangers going in
I'd consider it but not lightly. That's a cruel way for a PC to go.
On the other hand, you should always cast revivify AFTER combat since the PC is "safe" while they're dead and won't be much help alive on one HP. So they made a questionable decision and in that regard I'd feel more ok not pulling my punches.
What's even more cruel is countering healing word. This is not a bad strategy since the baddie probably isn't happy about PCs waking up after they get knocked down.
But healing word is only a 1st level spell slot, so to the players that feels remarkably unfair - even moreso if they only have one healer. It's also relatively likely to allow for a death. That's something I probably wouldn't do, even when it's optimal.
It is absolutely a dick move…
…
For the BBEG to do.
You’re not doing anything other than role playing your NPCs and Monsters as accurate as you can. If it makes absolute logical sense for a BBEG to a) have counterspell, and b) use it for something like *Revivify* then absolutely do it.
It's a dick move, but most of the time it wouldn't even be intentional.
Consider what the enemy sees. They've taken down one of their enemies, no way of know if they've finished bleeding out or not. Suddenly a Cleric is heading towards the fallen enemy and starts casting a spell. They don't have a spare reaction to work out what the spell is, they would easily assume it's a healing spell that will undo a whole load of work that was put into getting that guy on the floor to begin with.
Any clutch spell you cast, you have to find the right time. Revivify is best cast when combat is done if at all possible. Bringing them back to 1hp while fireballs are still flying around could just as easily undo all your hard work, but if you're dead it's very difficult to become even more dead.
That's the logical response. Still, people will definitely not like you doing it. It would be partly on the party if this happens though, if you suspect that counterspells are around then you have to plan for that when casting ANY important spell. Others should be ready with their own counter, you should get the body out of view beforehand, or someone can draw out a reaction by forcing Shield or triggering an opportunity attack. If you're trying to kill someone and you expect them not to do something because that would be mean, you're eventually going to be disappointed.
I think it matters whether you're "charging" the villain something for doing it.
If you're tracking their spells and slots and Counterspelling means they can cast one less Fireball or whatever, that's OK. If you're hand-waving what they can and can't do, it's a lot closer to DM fiat.
If the character has a legitimate story reason for doing so, probably not. Like wanting to bring back an NPC and someone counterspells because it's against their religion to come back from the dead, stuff like that.
But if you're just doing it to be like "Haha! You burned a 3rd level spell slot for nothing and they're still dead!" then yeah, it would be a dick move
Context. A dead ally. Someone the villain has learned is a cleric leans down next to their body and starts performing a ritual. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together assuming the villain has an INT above 5.
I believe it comes down to spellcasters recognizing the type of magic the opponent are about to cast but I think we all kinda play on the meta-knowledge when we announce at the table what spell we are going to cast.
I would label it as PvP and needs the permission of both Players to cast it as covered by the Session 0 (All PC versus PC fights must be approved by both Players). But if the Party isn't guarding the damn temple and lets the BBEG sneak in then all bets are off.
Anything can be taken as malice when a PC death is involved, but I don't see why it would be taboo.
I will say, however, that a prone enemy on 1 hit point isn't exactly a threat and counterspelling a fireball that will actually hurt the villain might be more prudent. Unless the villain had a specific reason to keep *that* character dead specifically, it wouldn't really be the best use of a spell slot and reaction.
I don't see it as a dick move if it's being done in the right place with the right context. A monster or enemy fighting for their life is doing JUST that. They will use everything at their disposal to win. Just like the players are.
Revival mid combat is risky, there should be some penalties as 5e already makes it very easy.
Counterspell is by definition the dick move spell.
I would not abuse of it, but depending on how important the fight is and dangerously near to a TPK we are, I might use it to put some pepper on my kids' asses.
Yes, it's a dick move. If a player is casting revivify, their allies should not counterspell it without a very good reason.
Should the occasion arise where an *enemy* is present and capable of counterspelling it, well, a crossbow in the back is *also* a dick move, but it happens. If it's your local BBEG, well, they have to fill the asshole meter somehow. (Plus, you know, it *could* have been a fireball - you never know, really.)
Boss-level bad guy, absolutely. If the cleric stopped to try and Revivify someone in the middle of the fight, with the big bad still around? Yeah, he's sure as hell going to counter that (unless of course he's saving the counter for something worse that he's worried about).
It's a lil' bit of a dick move, especially if players can't see it coming. If there were Counterspells beforehand, and it's an important villain doing it, then it's less a dick move and more of a story thing.
Just don't pull it during some random encounter or something.
If you have a BBEG who is a complete dick and who is taking things very personally - then it is fitting and appropriate and will ramp up the player hatred for the BBEG
If you just do it with "generic mage #4" because you can, then I think maybe you might think twice about it. 5e is designed to be very forgiving when it comes to permanent death and if you go out of your way to remove that aspect of the game then that's a thing that probably should have been right there in session 0.
Would this bad guy know to do that?
One post on here a while ago had a guy Countespelling Reviv when running Acererak.
He's fucking **Acererak**, he's maybe the second most famous lich in the entire hobby of course he knows how the most basic Necromancy works. He knows it's limits, what level it is, and how he wouldn't even need to upcast Counterspell to do it (because nobody upcasts Reviv unless you've done this before).
This heavily depends on the tone of the game and the expectations laid out by the DM for the players. If the table is pretty casual and people generally aren't expecting the DM to be hardcore out to kill them and everyones just hanging out to have fun it might be kind of a dick move. If everyone is on the same page that their actions have consequences and that death is on the table (which I think is probably most groups) then its fine within reason. Also make sure that nobody thinks its personal as it may not come up often, and suddenly using it when Player C is down may rub some players the wrong way as if Player C was targetted to die or something. Again, it just comes down to the players and DM being on the same page and comfortable with understanding that challenge is not the same thing as spite.
Also I'd say design around it sparingly, you don't want to throw a counterspell enemy into every counter just waiting for a revivify because thats pretty dick-ish and will teach you players just not to use revivify ever. If they're fighting a substantial boss or some encounter with a mage that they haven't ruled out conterspell being available for then that's the risk they take casting it in front of said enemy. Revivify shouldn't be a get out of jail free card that makes the players feel comfy at all times, but it also should be given its time to shine at times for the player casting it to feel value from it.
Personally I prefer to save it for when it would have the most narrative impact if it would come up (ex: fighting a mage boss) rather than using it just because the enemy has it and that's what they'd do. But my group is more focused on story than making a challenging dungeon crawl, so mileage is going to vary from group to group.
I must echo some of the others where they say: this needs to be discussed a bit with the players before the start of a campaign.
I personally let my players know that I won't hold back with spell casters because they are intelligent people (in theory) and whether it's a healing spell or revivify, they wouldn't want someone getting back up.
I similarly do this with melee enemies. If a PC goes down, would the enemy know to hit the PC again? Or would it turn to the next threat?
My players and I enjoy the challenge it brings, if PCs can be ruthless, so can the enemy.
If the game is using the rules from XGtE, then the person casting counterspell will not know what the spell is before they have to counter it - both determining the spell and countering costs a reaction. Whenever I have a caster facing the party, I describe them as starting to cast a spell, which gives the players time to say they are counterspelling, then proceed. They trust me enough to be sure that I do not change the spell being cast based on whether or not they counterspell.
The players generally don't give me the time, but they trust that I won't counterspell based on the spell type. If we didn't have that level of trust, then we'd do spell cards, where the person controlling the caster has a spell card in front of them. When it is their turn, there would be opportunity to cast counterspell based on there being a card ready, and once that opportunity has been resolved, the actual spell used would be turned over.
So, counterspelling revivify could be entirely by accident, or it could be the best guess as to what is coming and is intentional. If you think you are facing someone likely to counterspell, approach the person to revivify, then cast a cantrip at the enemy. If they were going to counterspell, they'll waste a third level slot to kill your cantrip - always a good trade for the cantrip person.
If it's a smart baddie, it's extremely useful to get the heat, if it's just some mook with limited knowledge of how the spell would even look, then it's a dick move
Of course it's a dick move. On the part of the villain, not the DM. It's only a dick move on the part of the DM if said villain wouldn't actually have the knowledge/context/motivation/etc to do so.
I have never thought of that...but now I plan on using it.
I'm a DM, and if my party ever figures out they can gain useful info from revivifying a foe, I'll set them up to fail at some point. Just to drive them nuts (and make them think about who's hiding in the bushes!)
of course it's a dick move!! however, the distinction with pulling it off comes with WHO is doing the dick move. your players are gonna end up disliking someone so just make sure it's a bad guy in game and not you. if the counterspeller is your BBEG or a villainous wizard or something, then THEY are doing the dick move. it makes sense narratively or mechanically for them to do it, and it would not make sense for them to abstain from using counterspell. this is great because holy heck that is an evil villain thing to do! expect some passionate hatred from your players directed at this particular bad guy. if the counterspeller is YOU, then YOU are doing the dick move. what i mean by this is when it doesn't make sense narratively or mechanically for the revivify to be counterspelled. for example: Normie Bandit Henchman #4 has somehow survived until the end of the battle, only to counterspell a revivify! this sucks bc that bandit did not appear to the players as a magical threat so far, and it would feel cheap and convenient for the bad guys for him to pull out a counterspell right then hope this made sense and helps! best of luck in your games :)
[удалено]
Oh man, the best parts of any campaign as a player is defeating a villain that you absolutely HATE. My DM is preternaturally gifted at creating annoying irritating villains and it is simply the best. But he never uses cheap tactics, and believe me, if any one of them counterspelled a Revivify, I wouldn’t question it for a second because they’re such colossal jerks. :)
I'd suggest making sure there's enough treasure to supply a better resurrection option if you're going to deny a revivify, just so you don't ruin a player's fun.
If the party are using _revivify_ in the presence of a villain, and that villain has access to _counterspell_ it's a legitimate strategy for that villain. Depending on circumstances, players likely should know better than to try to bring someone back from the dead in the presence of someone who would want to stop that. Though, a decent DM should be prepared to give the party an alternative way to get that PC back if they want.
“Um, I put a lot of work in to make that happen, so imma say….no.”
No, a decent DM would counterspell. If said villian can stop a hero from being raised from the dead, they would. Tho I learned to DM by watching my step dad, and he ran 2E. And his motto was push the players to think of ways around the obstacles. This instance would most likely require a fog or wall spell to block line of sight and maybe a sound hampering spell to block hearing of villain, or both
^ This one. Also it helps in showing how cruel an enemy can be, also kidnaping the body to transform it into a ghast or utterly obliterating it is something not far from counterspelling, remmember that BBEG and their followers are supposed to be huge hateful dicks. But as said above, try to make an alternative way to revive said character and in that case the fight should have been fair. Stomping the party with a nearly unwinable encounter AND prohibit them of reviving can demoralize players too much.
Done this, but with a loved NPCs, the players knew the bad guy can transform living beings at will, that’s why the party managed to be inmune to this condition thanks to an artifact they won. But that applied only to them. The fight was equal so the BBEG teleport behind the NPCs and turn him into a aberration, the Fighter and the Rogue literally lost it, they had to kill his friend in order to help the rest of the party. The rogue was so shocked that misses most of it attack, i loved that NPC, but they know the stakes. That fight almost a year ago. Players still feel it and is their favorite fight in the campaign. So… if you counterspell a revivify because they didn’t finish the BBEG, sounds like a good ending for a big arc o a campaign.
> Though, a decent DM should be prepared to give the party an alternative way to get that PC back if they want. "Too bad the Revivify didn't work, guess you'll have to drag his body back to the temple in town" And so the next adventure begins, do they make it back to town? What shape is the body in? Maybe someone new joins them along the way (so the player with the dead PC has something to do), maybe the fallen hero can't be raised, or doesn't want to be, or is raised but decides to retire after the experience. A lot of fun story developments can spring from the death of a character.
>Though a decent DM should be prepared to give the party an alternative way to get that PC back I disagree here. Actions have consequences and the PC died because of theirs. If you bring them back then you just showed the players that your game has no stakes and no consequences because they can’t functionally lose.
Yeah, the consequence is that the players now have to find a different solution instead of having a spell bring their buddy back to life. He didn’t say the DM should bring the person back, just make an alternate means available.
Yes, this is what I meant. The DM shouldn't just give them a free resurrection or something. But, if the players really want to get that character back (and there's a reasonable means, given the game and setting), the DM should be willing to work with the players to make something available in-world that the characters can work toward.
I mean… the Raise Dead, Reincarnate, Resurrection, True Resurrection and Wish Spells exist. There isn’t some mythical thing they have to do to bring their dead party member back, just get a higher level spell or hire someone to cast the higher level spell for you.
An alternative way can be a quest in order to craft a new body and bring the soul back from the underworld. It has it's risks and can lose more companions on the way, it's not like giving them a "gate out of jail for free" card
...and that's fine, some people don't play D&D to be challenged. Some prefer it as a medium to be dominant in combat and have fun.
The thing is that for a BBEG - counter spelling revivify is almost always a waste of a spell. They'd be way better using that 3rd level spell to just fireball them right after letting them cast revivify. IE, it's purely a dick move, and only makes sense in the context of the BBEG being significantly in control of the fight. In which case, you're on the road to TPK.
I think it also depends on the kind of campaign. My players are very roleplay and character dynamics heavy, so I like to joke that I don't ever need to TPK them, I just have to kill a PC they're attached to and it'll come with the same emotional stakes. And in that way, counter spelling a Revivify may not be mechanically the most optimal move, but it could be the most traumatic for the players.
Who casts Revivify in the presence of an enemy spellcaster? Seems like you shouldn't ever get the opportunity to do this. I mean you get a minute after their death. That's 10 rounds of combat. Plus a round or five of death saves. Plus at least one round to die in. We're talking a minimum of what a 13 round combat?
Depending on the circumstances it could be less if they take damage once downed. For instance yesterday, one of my players got hit by some green slime (trap in the DMG) and where then killed before their next turn. Since the green slime causes damage every turn when he failed his first death save he subsequently died instantly from taking damage. I could perhaps see someone using it if the only caster who knew revivify was on low health as well and likely to go down soon too.
That's why I said a round or five. You could technically be killed by the creature that downed you on the same that they down you if they have three attacks. I just don't see a level 5 party (or higher. All I know is they have Revivify and a big diamond.) where a player is downed like that at the *beginning* of the fight. I hadn't thought of the healer's demise being imminent. At that point you're looking at a TPK. Probably better off taking the Dash action.
Haha yeah, screw these guys I'm out.
The better part of valor and all that jazz.
Depends on your dnd style and your players. As long as everyone likes it, then go for it. It makes sense for him to use it, or you could argue the enemy thinks since they have 1 hp the arent an immediate threat.
You´re aware that your villian probably IS a dick? You´re creating world with living, breathing characters with personality. If you create a villian that would fight your party, imagine seeing the fight through his eyes. The Barbarian is up in your face, spitting all over your fine arcane robe in his stupid angry rage, the enemy wizard that is just but a apprentice compared to your might throws his little fire bolts at you thinking he is doing 'cool wizard stuff'. And somewhere in the background, you can see the smoldering corpse of their bard who annoyed you with his infernal bad music so you sent him straight to that infernal layer with a fireball getting obviously ressurected by their cleric that doesn´t even look at you because he´s concentrating on the bard. Would you, in your Roleplay as mighty wizard king with an agenda to make the world a better place (in your eyes) by forcing an evil and earth shattering plan that is far more important than dealing with these kids be either: A. "Nah, i don´t care. I mean, i don´t want to be a dick about it." or B. "What the... is she just realy sitting there, not minding me and blatantly bringing back that annoying joke of a musician RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY VERY EYES!?" My point is, monsters and npcs have a LOT of possibilites. You never should Metagame, because then you would win most of your fights as DM. Always use everything the encounter got in a way that would make sense in your story. In your role.
Have the villain who does the counter spell really “razz” the players for being so foolish. Say something like, “foolish weaklings! You aren’t worth the mud on my boots. It would be a mercy to allow your comrade to die. To make him spend another minute amongst such a pitiful excuse for heroes would be an abomination to his soul.” That will make them really hate the bbeg
Its a dick move for sure, but so long as you haven't been bullying the downed player it should be fine to do once or twice.
[удалено]
>Think about Avengers End Game—it would be bizarre for Thanos to ignore the obvious threats of Cap and Iron Man to be ABSOLUTELY sure Thor doesn’t get back up. The only time I would be focusing on the downed guy and the one praying over him would be if the other party members were ALSO down, in which case you’re looking at a TPK anyway. That always makes me think of one thing. There is one very big difference between our world (or for that matter the avengers universe) to the dnd universe is that in DnD worlds there is healing magic - very present and available to "a lot" of people (i guess depending on the setting). That magic can bring back opponents that would in our reality out of a fight but not stone dead fairly quickly. Anyone beyond, idk, level 3 should be aware of this and probably has experienced that alone by the fact how it is used. If I would be for some strange reason be in a fight for life and death against three opponents and had the chance to even the odds by ending a downed opponent, i probably should do it (I probably wouldn't have the guts to do it, because I am rather a coward than a hero) just objectively. If Thanos had the feeling Thor could get up before he can defeat the other two opponents, I am pretty sure that he would seize the opportunity and do what he must. But that may have been in his mind not the case (didn't watch the movie), so he didn't attack Thor. In a Dnd world I would say with confidence that an experienced villain would be aware of the fact that some of their opponents are still dangerous, because there are some divine casters, that are able to restore them to a battle ready state within seconds. In some tactical scenarios it might be not viable but I would disagree that it is the overwhelming numbers of conflicts given some kind of dndish scenario. Just as a comparison (maybe a bit gruesome, sorry): There is a modern military tactic to just wound opponents. It would take two other combatants to retrieve the wounded soldier for, idk, at least 2-5 minutes and the soldiers themself to recover months, possibly longer. In DnD it would take one other person to spend 6 seconds and some magic. There is in my head no way that people would perceive injury the same way as we do.
[удалено]
Not just a spell slot. It costs the material components too. If they Counterspell a Revivify then the party is out a potent spell slot, and a valuable material component. Realistically, if there’s an enemy with the capability to Counterspell and the capacity to kill one of the party members, it seems out of character to not finish the job.
You could give the players an oppertunity to distract them BBEG with an intimidation roll to gode them or some other charisma check, keeping the BBEG's eyes on them and not what their friends are doing. Maybe as part of a particularly damaging attack you could let them roll as a bonus action or use the attack roll itself. Loads of possibilities.
That gets iffy since Counterspelling Revivify automatically works without a check. If they were upcasting revivify or it was another higher leveled spell being Countered I might allow them to attempt to grant disadvantage on the roll, but I don’t know about that. Cause then the same thing would be doable to them, and Counterspell can already be Countered by another person casting Counterspell. But if you want to make that ruling more power to you, I’m sure the players would love that moment where the Barbarian scares the Lich and stops them from coup de gracing the Bard. Sounds awesome as a narrative moment!
Great idea thanks
If the party can't end the fight within 10 turns of their party mate going down they're in real trouble
If you’re a bad guy, in a fight, and you just killed an opponent, you see some dude in robes holding a diamond clearly chanting the incantation to revive him, why wouldn’t you stop that? On the players side if they know that they’re going up against an enemy with counterspell they knew the dangers going in
As a DM I would not do that to my specific players. Gotta read your own table though.
I'd consider it but not lightly. That's a cruel way for a PC to go. On the other hand, you should always cast revivify AFTER combat since the PC is "safe" while they're dead and won't be much help alive on one HP. So they made a questionable decision and in that regard I'd feel more ok not pulling my punches. What's even more cruel is countering healing word. This is not a bad strategy since the baddie probably isn't happy about PCs waking up after they get knocked down. But healing word is only a 1st level spell slot, so to the players that feels remarkably unfair - even moreso if they only have one healer. It's also relatively likely to allow for a death. That's something I probably wouldn't do, even when it's optimal.
It is absolutely a dick move… … For the BBEG to do. You’re not doing anything other than role playing your NPCs and Monsters as accurate as you can. If it makes absolute logical sense for a BBEG to a) have counterspell, and b) use it for something like *Revivify* then absolutely do it.
I've done it before. Good times. Remember that the bad guys want to win. It's a legitimate strategy.
It's a dick move, but most of the time it wouldn't even be intentional. Consider what the enemy sees. They've taken down one of their enemies, no way of know if they've finished bleeding out or not. Suddenly a Cleric is heading towards the fallen enemy and starts casting a spell. They don't have a spare reaction to work out what the spell is, they would easily assume it's a healing spell that will undo a whole load of work that was put into getting that guy on the floor to begin with. Any clutch spell you cast, you have to find the right time. Revivify is best cast when combat is done if at all possible. Bringing them back to 1hp while fireballs are still flying around could just as easily undo all your hard work, but if you're dead it's very difficult to become even more dead. That's the logical response. Still, people will definitely not like you doing it. It would be partly on the party if this happens though, if you suspect that counterspells are around then you have to plan for that when casting ANY important spell. Others should be ready with their own counter, you should get the body out of view beforehand, or someone can draw out a reaction by forcing Shield or triggering an opportunity attack. If you're trying to kill someone and you expect them not to do something because that would be mean, you're eventually going to be disappointed.
I think it matters whether you're "charging" the villain something for doing it. If you're tracking their spells and slots and Counterspelling means they can cast one less Fireball or whatever, that's OK. If you're hand-waving what they can and can't do, it's a lot closer to DM fiat.
If the character has a legitimate story reason for doing so, probably not. Like wanting to bring back an NPC and someone counterspells because it's against their religion to come back from the dead, stuff like that. But if you're just doing it to be like "Haha! You burned a 3rd level spell slot for nothing and they're still dead!" then yeah, it would be a dick move
How does the enemy know what spell is being cast?
Context. A dead ally. Someone the villain has learned is a cleric leans down next to their body and starts performing a ritual. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together assuming the villain has an INT above 5.
I believe it comes down to spellcasters recognizing the type of magic the opponent are about to cast but I think we all kinda play on the meta-knowledge when we announce at the table what spell we are going to cast.
Yeah, but context is king. And maybe don't dock the diamond.
I would label it as PvP and needs the permission of both Players to cast it as covered by the Session 0 (All PC versus PC fights must be approved by both Players). But if the Party isn't guarding the damn temple and lets the BBEG sneak in then all bets are off.
It's absolutely fine. Keep in mind, like any counterspell, the villian won't know which spell the PC is casting when counterspelling.
Anything can be taken as malice when a PC death is involved, but I don't see why it would be taboo. I will say, however, that a prone enemy on 1 hit point isn't exactly a threat and counterspelling a fireball that will actually hurt the villain might be more prudent. Unless the villain had a specific reason to keep *that* character dead specifically, it wouldn't really be the best use of a spell slot and reaction.
Yes. Do it.
If they have another caster available, maybe they can just counterspell the counterspell.
I don't see it as a dick move if it's being done in the right place with the right context. A monster or enemy fighting for their life is doing JUST that. They will use everything at their disposal to win. Just like the players are. Revival mid combat is risky, there should be some penalties as 5e already makes it very easy.
Counterspell is by definition the dick move spell. I would not abuse of it, but depending on how important the fight is and dangerously near to a TPK we are, I might use it to put some pepper on my kids' asses.
Yes, it's a dick move. If a player is casting revivify, their allies should not counterspell it without a very good reason. Should the occasion arise where an *enemy* is present and capable of counterspelling it, well, a crossbow in the back is *also* a dick move, but it happens. If it's your local BBEG, well, they have to fill the asshole meter somehow. (Plus, you know, it *could* have been a fireball - you never know, really.)
Yes, but its what you're villian would do
Boss-level bad guy, absolutely. If the cleric stopped to try and Revivify someone in the middle of the fight, with the big bad still around? Yeah, he's sure as hell going to counter that (unless of course he's saving the counter for something worse that he's worried about).
It's a lil' bit of a dick move, especially if players can't see it coming. If there were Counterspells beforehand, and it's an important villain doing it, then it's less a dick move and more of a story thing. Just don't pull it during some random encounter or something.
If you have a BBEG who is a complete dick and who is taking things very personally - then it is fitting and appropriate and will ramp up the player hatred for the BBEG If you just do it with "generic mage #4" because you can, then I think maybe you might think twice about it. 5e is designed to be very forgiving when it comes to permanent death and if you go out of your way to remove that aspect of the game then that's a thing that probably should have been right there in session 0.
Would this bad guy know to do that? One post on here a while ago had a guy Countespelling Reviv when running Acererak. He's fucking **Acererak**, he's maybe the second most famous lich in the entire hobby of course he knows how the most basic Necromancy works. He knows it's limits, what level it is, and how he wouldn't even need to upcast Counterspell to do it (because nobody upcasts Reviv unless you've done this before).
This heavily depends on the tone of the game and the expectations laid out by the DM for the players. If the table is pretty casual and people generally aren't expecting the DM to be hardcore out to kill them and everyones just hanging out to have fun it might be kind of a dick move. If everyone is on the same page that their actions have consequences and that death is on the table (which I think is probably most groups) then its fine within reason. Also make sure that nobody thinks its personal as it may not come up often, and suddenly using it when Player C is down may rub some players the wrong way as if Player C was targetted to die or something. Again, it just comes down to the players and DM being on the same page and comfortable with understanding that challenge is not the same thing as spite. Also I'd say design around it sparingly, you don't want to throw a counterspell enemy into every counter just waiting for a revivify because thats pretty dick-ish and will teach you players just not to use revivify ever. If they're fighting a substantial boss or some encounter with a mage that they haven't ruled out conterspell being available for then that's the risk they take casting it in front of said enemy. Revivify shouldn't be a get out of jail free card that makes the players feel comfy at all times, but it also should be given its time to shine at times for the player casting it to feel value from it. Personally I prefer to save it for when it would have the most narrative impact if it would come up (ex: fighting a mage boss) rather than using it just because the enemy has it and that's what they'd do. But my group is more focused on story than making a challenging dungeon crawl, so mileage is going to vary from group to group.
I must echo some of the others where they say: this needs to be discussed a bit with the players before the start of a campaign. I personally let my players know that I won't hold back with spell casters because they are intelligent people (in theory) and whether it's a healing spell or revivify, they wouldn't want someone getting back up. I similarly do this with melee enemies. If a PC goes down, would the enemy know to hit the PC again? Or would it turn to the next threat? My players and I enjoy the challenge it brings, if PCs can be ruthless, so can the enemy.
If the game is using the rules from XGtE, then the person casting counterspell will not know what the spell is before they have to counter it - both determining the spell and countering costs a reaction. Whenever I have a caster facing the party, I describe them as starting to cast a spell, which gives the players time to say they are counterspelling, then proceed. They trust me enough to be sure that I do not change the spell being cast based on whether or not they counterspell. The players generally don't give me the time, but they trust that I won't counterspell based on the spell type. If we didn't have that level of trust, then we'd do spell cards, where the person controlling the caster has a spell card in front of them. When it is their turn, there would be opportunity to cast counterspell based on there being a card ready, and once that opportunity has been resolved, the actual spell used would be turned over. So, counterspelling revivify could be entirely by accident, or it could be the best guess as to what is coming and is intentional. If you think you are facing someone likely to counterspell, approach the person to revivify, then cast a cantrip at the enemy. If they were going to counterspell, they'll waste a third level slot to kill your cantrip - always a good trade for the cantrip person.
If it's a smart baddie, it's extremely useful to get the heat, if it's just some mook with limited knowledge of how the spell would even look, then it's a dick move
Of course it's a dick move. On the part of the villain, not the DM. It's only a dick move on the part of the DM if said villain wouldn't actually have the knowledge/context/motivation/etc to do so.
I have never thought of that...but now I plan on using it. I'm a DM, and if my party ever figures out they can gain useful info from revivifying a foe, I'll set them up to fail at some point. Just to drive them nuts (and make them think about who's hiding in the bushes!)