Literally started designing a Wizard subclass just for this dueling mechanic and realized, it should just be a framework mechanic for the game. You were right on the money with this DC!
A big part of this is that even when at zero a player isn’t unconscious; they still get to role play. And even when at 1 players are vulnerable to instant death. This solves so many issues with 5e.
@@prophetzarquon1922 So, you die when you get to a negative HP equal to your prime modifier. So even at 1 HP, while you can act normally, a single crit, or even a decent brutal/heavy hit can instantly kill you. Wereas in 5e, you are pretty safe from a single hit except maybe below level 3 because of how ridiculous the massive damage rules are. The most awesome thing is what happens in the range of 0 and in negative numbers that don't kill you. You are on "Death's Door" and can only take one action on each of your turns. I think you also need to roll a death save or lose 1 hp. So you get to continue to RP right up to the moment of actual death, rather than being unconscious, or being yo-yoed back and forth between up and down.
@@insertphrasehere15 Interesting! I like how the 4 point per turn action economy, lends itself to "barely doing", rather than waffling between "100% power at 1HP" & total incapacitation. That 'Prime Modifier' thing walks a fine line: Being able to apply it to anything one has specialized in, makes good sense mechanically & thematically; having it apply to _everything_ would reduce uniqueness & run counter to the real-world phenomena of people becoming better at what they do & worse at things they don't, with age. I find the concept promising, but I haven't studied it in use, yet.
This idea is why I dislike counterspell so much. In comparison to a spell duel, counterspell seems so limp. Then comes the cheese of counterspelling counterspell chains and the counterspell arms race.
So the reason this works so well in DC20 is the action system, yes it's thematically cooler, but the game feel comes from that action point system, I tried making this in dnd and it was so complicated. In 5e you trade a reaction for an action which is a massive trade for the counterspell user to gain, resulting in the spell being super strong and boarderliner mandatory. Forcing a spell duel always costs you 2 AP for your next turn and atleast 1 mana which means there is always a cost to counterspelling that is proportional to what you are stopping.
I think that the idea of pushing the narrative as the primary concern is what makes the difference. I've had 5e games with specific people in which a level 5 adventure feels like an epic, just because of how the players describe their actions. What I'm saying here, then, is, do not be surprised if, despite your system pushing narrative hard, you still have people that just say "I cast ________ to spell duel. I rolled. I succeed/fail." The best tool we have here is for the GM to ask the magical question: "How do you perform that action?" I love the idea of spell duels, though... I really can't stand counterspell... or legendary resistances, for that matter.
Maybe if there was another person explaining the system, one who didn't explain it like a 12-year-old boy playing with his toys, the system would have more attention. Seriously, every day I get lazier watching these videos.
@@caurdwow it's almost like he is excited about his work and is excited to talk about his creation 🤔. It's a better presentation than the big devs talking about new DND content
@@masonweaver5005 Yes, but you can be excited like an adult. Saving childish phrases like "it blows your mind" or "it's incredibly incredible." And, above all, he could try to stop discrediting other systems and acting as if he invented Coca-Cola, taking credit for things that are in fact the creations of others.
@@caurd Fair statement. I and others enjoy his style of enthusiasm, but I can see where you are coming from. Those phrases can be seen as childish, but again we are talking about a game of "make believe". Fair points though.
If all you want is the imagery, then all you need to do is to rewrite the flavor text of counterspell. Just describe counterspell as a spell that counters the effect of the countered spell. Countering a fireball just requires you to say you summon a geyser of water that clashes with the fireball and expodes into a cloud of steam. Mechanically no difference required to change the imagery. You summon a cloud of darkness that blocks the hypnotic from view. The visuals are completely accessible without any need for homebrew.
Of course you can always flavor spells to do and look any way you want. The change was at a foundational level to the rules, the side benefit is the flavor 👍🏼
We actually play tested the spell duel tie...both rolled a 15; on the Wild Magic surge, the Dragonborn bard turned into a sheep (which the DM allowed to make a single breath weapon attack) and the dark cleric couldn't make reactions for 8 turns, we loved it!
Exactly! I like the idea of Counterspell as a focused counter against any spell and the idea of others being able to be used, even if in a more niche way.
I’ve used this system for a little bit in my game after seeing in alkanders almanac and so far I really like it cause it adds this unique feeling countering an enemies spell like now it’s a huge gamble that could lead to a huge boon or a catastrophic result. Also loved the yugioh at the start
I didn't realize you were the one developing DC 20! I used to watch your videos all the time and only recently just rediscovered you. I'm definitely going on Kickstarter to back it now
UA-cam must have literally been hiding this channel from me until I searched explicitly for it; I watch RPG & D&D content all the time, & yet I now see that it hasn't suggested a single video from this channel to me since DC20 released...
I've been working on both a mana and counter magic system for 5e that work so much like the systems in DC20. I'm so happy to see other people on the same page as me and can't wait to give this system a try!
There’s also ways to do spell combat in AD&1st edition if a spell has a verbal component that you need to use to cast a spell then you would be vulnerable to a silence spell and likewise any spell requiring a target is visible by the attacker would be vulnerable to someone casting a darkness or similar spell
It's the same way in 5e, silence means no verbal components, darkness means no line of sight, hold person/hold monster means no somatic components. Same way if a martial class wants to break the hand of a spell Caster or crush their windpipe. Prevents those aspects of spell casting, but you can still overcome it with metamagic.
Using dispel magic for these same design goals, has work consistently over the decades. Cheers! I love your hard work. I hope to earn your subscription.
Yea they can but that kinda lose its interaction? The DM decide what happens. Compared to spell duel you need to think a viable way to counter it. Much more interactive
Hei DC , im loving the system so far, i like have a spell duel, but this mechanics I don’t think it’s good for the defenders, first if the atacker wins the spell goes normal, i know its the risk of counterpell doesn’t work, but if the defender wins the two spells are gone the atacker and the defender, its a great advantage to the atacker… and when you have more the 2 defenders if the atacker was good in the dice the defenders don’t have a chance. First i think when you have more than 1 defender the dices must me added, imagine a lich casting a powerful spell than 1 spell defender can’t stop, but 3 casters of the group together can beat the high dice, will be a great moment that group doing something together can be stronger than the powerfull enemy. Sure it’s just a ideia, but i thing will be satisfy for the player and the campaign. Keep the good work
I don't mind Counterspell, but Counter-Counter and triple Counters and stuff do make it a bit overused... and I think that's mainly due to level. Imagine if it was a level 5 spell instead. That would change it up a lot. This system does mostly sound cooler. I do believe that in a world of magic, they'd develop a Counterspell if they could, though. So maybe consider making that a high level spell? Like maybe 7 or 8 if you still use spell levels up to 9th. Also, I still disagree with Casters not being able to make an Opportunity Attack. I know it's sometimes lame when it's like, "Can I punch them as they run by?" "You can certainly try." "Does 17 hit?" "Yes. Roll 1d4 and you do half that in damage unless you're a Monk or Barbarian." Or whatever. But also, it feels kinda hilarious when you get the kill with that. I definitely think Casters should have the option. Especially since they're unlikely to hit, since they don't have a positive modifier, probably. Certainly no Proficiency or anything in punching lmao. (Except of course a Bladesinger Wizard type, or I think College Of Swords Bard is supposed to be about the same?)
I very much can see Counterspell being a spell that's literally made for spell duelling, essentially being able to use it to spell duel any spell with some bonus (e.g. "As if you spent 2 mana points more than you did.").
I would be crying like a baby at that table. Great work! This is amazing! This is the kind of stuff they'll be talking about whenever someone asks about their hobby.
Ngl, I've been entertaining the idea of running a new campaign after a while of not DMing (been lucky enough to have been able to be a player for the last two years), and the more and more I watch your videos I really really want to use the DC20 system.
@11:20 "What happens on a tie... that's a very rare chance, it's less than a 1 in 20 chance" It's actually exactly a 1-in-20 chance for an exact tie. Modifiers don't generally affect the math much, it's still a 1-in-20 to tie. This is clearly true when you already know what your opponent rolled, since it's easy see that it's a 1 in 20 to get the value you'd need to tie that - the math works out the same even if you don't know their value before your roll. (there's 20 ways to tie a pair of d20s, and 400 ways to roll a pair. 20/400 =1/20) (technically it's marginally less than 1 in 20 if someone's modifiers are terrible and they minimum roll, or modifiers are too high and they max roll, since this can leave their total out of the possible range that the other person could even reach, but that's also quite rare) Really awesome video though! I love this system and the visual story it tells. I'm excited to sit down and think about how I can incorporate this into PF1e without removing counterspell either, since I don't actually mind counterspells directly and would like them to remain an option with different upsides and downsides still.
This is why during my boss battles i add basically quicktime events in the form of reactions. For example i have this radiant dragon boss in my campaign who i want to use a reaction to challenge opposing spells, especially other radiant spells, with his own or vice versa. He will say something along the lines of "Your measly powers fall short of my brilliant light!" or something like that and that player gets to have a sort of magic tug of war where the loser takes the damage of the original spell and then some. Or i'll add some catastrophic ability the boss would use that can be counteracted by the players all working together to push it back. Example would be an ancient dragon focusing his firepower into a single beam that would easily one shot but the spellcasters get to combine spells to collide with it or block it.
Hey coach, sorry this goes on a few tangents, appreciate your content, and your attention if you read this to it's conclusion. Regarding the points you make regarding that you hate how slow works in DnD. Where a player makes a choice. and then that choice has an effect (Despite the fact that the element of chaos is exercised, as the DM rolls the dice for this) Dice are still being used to determine the outcome of a random event. What I hate most about DnD and TTRPGs that I've player in general is that the narrative you're trying to tell is almost always a slave to the dice rolls. Almost always it's considered a cardinal sin for you to do something that's well within your characters means, and just have that happen. There's always some arbitrary check, or there always has to be chance, regardless of how small or large that you'll horrifyingly fail, or expertly succeed. Recently I broke the seal on a (admittedly very poorly written) TTRPG called Bunkers and Baddasses (Yes like the one mentioned in the borderlands video game franchise) Where the weapon you have equipped had a item card (the same size as a normal playing card) and on that card was a table. Now, the tables scaled poorly, but I loved the concept that, yes, obviously, 1 was the gun jamming and you needed to reload, but 2-7 was one damage dice 8-13 was 2 damage dice, 14-19 was 3 damage dice and 20 was max damage or double dice, or something like that. What I'm getting at is the dice roll represented a spectrum of success and not a yes/no outcome. So the chances of the dice telling you no being limited to just 5%, choices mattered and felt good to make. When I look at new systems or systems people are making (I'm making one of my own, btw :3 ) I look at how much the choices players make, matter. How integral is the dice roll in determining success. Because I saying 4 words, rolling dice once and being told "Nice try, but get better at rolling dice" and have my choices mean nothing and have no impact. feels bad to play. I like DnD and it will always have a special place in my heart, But for me to want to migrate, or learn a new system it has to offer something new and exciting or fix a problem I percieve as being in DnD. I started playing a TTRPG with some friends, a star wars one by fantasy flight games, (there's more than one and that'd be like confusing DnD with Pathfinder) Where they don't use numerical dice. the dice are basically broken up into what I can crudely describe as "yes","no", "and" & "but" with the critical failures and successes acting as "& ALSO" So you're really good at shooting. You might roll 2d12 and 3d8 that are good (yellow and green)The faces on these dice range from blank, to 1 yes, to 1 and, a yes& an and, 2 yes, 2 and, and the mega yes. but your target is really difficult to hit they might have 1d12 and 2d8 which are bad for you (red & purple) You roll all of them. The yes's and no's cancel out. The ands and buts cancel out, and when you've made sense of the results, you'll be left with a "yes, and", "Yes, but", "No, But" or "no, and" outcome, with a "& Also" on top if you critically succeeded or failed, which doesn't cancel out but exists parralel to the previous staement and each other, you can critically succeed and fail, in addtion to a yes and. In my own system, I intend on social interactions use this method. And thought, if you were open to new ideas and potentially going back to the drawing board, your contested spell mechanic could use this too. (It also means you could manufacture and produce dice that you can sell alongside this system eh, ehhh ;D) If that changes what you want too fundamentally, I get it. But please, hear me out. Spending half of my next turn AND my mana to CONTEST something... creates a cost benefit question when the possible outcomes become yes/no or fail/success. I fail and then what? I lose my limited /long rest resource (mana) AND I lose half my next turn? That's a steep gamble over an outcome I have no control in. Because we once again end up at the juncture that; if the thing I'm attempting to do fails because you rolled better than me. it's a coin toss. There's no lesson to be learned here. It's a "get good at rolling dice, or suffer the full effects of my choices, while having what choices you can make halved" kind of situation. That would feel bad for the player that made that choice, spent those resources, is being penalized on his future turn, and had no impact. Obviously this boils down to design philosophy. And if lettign chaos reign supreme and tell the story, then I suppose How you've got things as outlined in this video is probably optimal and as intended, ready to be shipped. But hear me out; What if you focused on making player choices matter more? What could that look like? If, instead fireball works as it would to those familiar with 5e fireball where players in the radius make the save where succeeding their save causes them to take half, failing to take full. Contested spell outcome could instead of "yes/no" be a "yes/no, BUT" the fireball spell when contested, now failing that save takes half damage, and passing the save, you're fine. The player that contested the spell doesn't "waste" their resources and action ecnomy even if they fail, thus their choice to do it wasn't validated or invalidated by the dice roll. Love your channel. Love your content. If you want to reach out, and collab, the offer is open and I in fact extend that invitation! Keep up the great videos. Excited to see what you tackle next
I mean, you want martials to always hit and have no chance to miss aswell? And have every enemy automatically fail every save? I don't get your point what you want is to automatically succeed at everything and that won't happen. And dice are use specifically to make the results random and to not always have the same result, because that would be incredibly boring
nullifying someone else's spell seems like something a powerful character should be able to do if theres a large gap in power. The issue with DnD's counterspell is that it is just way too cheap. Counterspell should only be a guarantee for spells 2 levels lower than the counterspell's level. You shouldnt be able to turn a Wish spell into a fart unless you are the god of magic.
Something I am thinking of doing in my game is have each spell cast that deals damage have them both roll and the lower cancels out that much damage from the other. For example if the fireball rolled 20 damage and the cone of cold rolled 15 then the fireball still deals 5 damage. The question then I guess is if the cone of cold is trying to counter the fireball and rolled 20 and the fireball rolled 15 and the caster of the fireball is within range of the cone of cold should the cone of cold deal 5 damage to the other caster.
In that scenario I personally would say yes IF the cone of cold was originally aimed at the opposing caster and not say in between them and a party member. That's just my opinion.
My question about having the right spell to counter is how do you know which spell the enemy is casting? There wasn't anything in the video about identifying the spell that is being cast... it sounds like it enters the meta -- you hear the characters say "I'm casting fireball" so you know the character is casting fireball... a little too meta for my tastes. When we talked about my spell duel system at LairCon 1, which this sounds like it was based on, there was a skill check to figure out what spell was being cast. I think that's what is missing from this system. I'd probably have to homebrew the system to re-institute that skill roll in order to make this work.
While not a game designer, i an a DM and have some thoughts. 9:25 you say that the player has to initiate a spell duel after the DM rolls the die for his spell check but BEFORE the result of the roll is read. This could be a bit of an issue in two ways 1) this requires to announce a spell, halt the pace and double check to see if anyone wants to initiate a duel, and only then announce what happens. Its much more natural to say "BBG is going to cast with fireball, and rolls a 16" just like he describes an attack roll. As is, this could be slow, clunky, and confusing and kind of resembles an issue people have with the timing of counterspell in 5e. 2) this kind of robs your players of a strategic choice. We know that a lower spell check results in a weaker and easier to beat spell, and higher makes it deal more dmg but is harder to stop. You already have a risk/reward system built in, let your players take advantage of it. Do i want to spend my mana points on a small spell because ik i can succeed or do i want to save it for a major spell that is riskier but way more scary? 3:23 this may be my personal preference, but i really want my combat rules to be cut and dry. Something like "must make sense" is too vague and up to interepation. A player may try to spell duel in a way that the dm doesnt like and vice versa. Even in your cone of cold vs fireball example. To me fire beats ice everytime, fire is hot and melts the ice making it null and void. Having something like "only spells of the same school can spell duel" would make things more clear and not boil down to personal interpretation. Idk if your system has spell schools, but having 2 or 3 would be enough for this solution. Ftr, overall i love this concept and it looks well thought out and fun to play. Would love to try DC20 with some friends sometime
I'll be honest. I freaking LOVE counterspell. I stopped playing 5e as my main game years ago but was able to make the end of a campaign we were in based on strixhaven. Because everyone were spellcasters, the counterspell wars were INSANE. Easily it's the most fun I've ever had in 5e. And each time someone fired a counterspell, because we only had one reaction, there was HUGE opportunity costs to counterspelling, not to mention upcasting them so they couldn't be counterspelled back. There was also this strategy we had of burning legendary resistance in order to be able to land that huge hold monster on the final boss so we could end the counter with our martials critting the heck out of them. I think your system is an interesting alternative, and more story based. It reminds me of powered by the apocalypse, which is cool in its own right but it makes me sad when people say counterspell wars are boring. They are only as boring as the amount of third level counterspells slung
Love the vid, but 2:23 just isn't true. While counterspelling is VERY strong, and probably the prime conterder for your reaction, casters can have many reaction options. E.g. Shield, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Cutting Words (and some other similar class features), and to a lesser degree there's also the War Caster reaction. I'd say that Casters might have even more reaction options than martials (and that's a shame).
This sounds so much better narratively than what I've seen in D&D, and a clear improvement mechanically over counterspell, but I'm not convinced that it addresses the core problem with counterspell. My experience tends to be that one side has a lot more resources than the other and, if they have counterspell, they can completely shut down the casters on the other side. I would expect this to make a lot of casters either feel useless or like they have to spend most/all of their resources on spell duals in these situations. And, since all casters get it, this could make it really frustrating to make any progress in a battle with other casters. It would be like if martials could contest each others attack rolls
The only problem I see about needing to activate an effect after roll but before the number is called is the short window of irl time. If they roll and call before you form the words( which I’ve seen happen on a few occasions) you’re out of Lucky feat.
True and if the group you're playing with is anything like mine sometimes you can go 10 minutes or more without getting a word in unless you yell. We're a boisterous crew.
Im making my own D20/D6 original game and I very much do not like 5e and think this would be a cool rule to actually make the entire game surrounded by. As in redo the entire magic system. I think I’m going to have 5 types of magic. Also magic in my thing are let lines and intersect and spread apart with places of intrest at intersects. There is above magic, below magic, both magic, neither magic, and counter magic. I’m going to structure counter magic like it is its own spell and make wizard feel monk like where he gets more attacks and can divulge it to “blocking”. Also going to make wizard a “fantasy” class where unlike dnd wizard fight a character/ monsters Hit dice (like the original chainmail dnd) rather than actual. I have a very unique system brewing and i will release it when I can. I suck with numbers tho so that’ll be the hard part for my homebrew but I don’t think I’m changing to too much.
Just finished the video and while i did just stumble to this vid out of random and it was not bad and had some good ideas. As someone who plays barbarians and usually waits for the 3 spell casters to finished their 10 (or less) minutes per turn so me and the fighter can do our 20 (or less) second turn. Me personally, from what was discuss, am hearing a lot of thing spell casters can do in that but if the martial classes are not in range of their melee then they will just sit on the hand and be like they always have been and watch lights in the air happen. If the casters have enough time to cast a whole spell can't the rouge just throw a dagger and get sneak attack, or Barb chucking a rock, I'd just remove counterspell call it a day. All in all i like the idea.
Since one needs concentration _while_ casting (even if the spell doesn't require it after casting), simply giving everyone a Throw Rock reaction "when you see a creature casting a spell" could pretty much shut down casting while within pelting range...
@@WiIhelmScream Oh, I _do_ think martials should have more means of preventing a casting; casters run away with the game, toward higher levels. It's tricky to create rules that buff against control tactics, though...
By the sound of things, the War Caster Feat won't be part of DC20RPG? I ask because that Feat allows a caster to make an AoO with a spell if it affects a single target.
It can be a Talent (Feat), but a PC would need to be a Paladin (Martial/Spellcaster) or pickup a Multiclassing Talent (available at 2nd, 4th, 7th, and 10th through 20th level).
You might not play the card game Magic: the Gathering, but I tell you, us Blue wizards LOVE Counterspell as is. It’s a beautiful traditional rite of passage for every Blue mage to find the joy of stripping away any magics your foes might hope to cast. Deny them the right to the very duel itself. That being said, we’re overdue for some more spectacular clashing of spells. But just to give you a bit of background about where Counterspell comes from. It’s an entire school of magic with its own elaborate and degenerately overpowered history. The Blue wizards may shove it back in eventually anyways.
so in the scenario you describe at the end, would a GM not be able to allow players to aid each other if they had similar enough spells? I would like to have seen an option for 3 characters wanting to do the same thing to somehow stack the check so one just say gives advantage on the check and another with the same spell type adds 5 or something. So same narrative need but a cooperative stack instead of 3 characters doing their own thing. Any consideration for this type of play?
Do you think Sorcerers could counter an enemy's spell by using metamagic Careful Spell to sure the spell no longer affects their allies? Or, in regards to your idea of combos between allies, use metamagic on their Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Warlock buddy's spells to Twin/Quicken/Subtle/Careful Spell?
I homebrew counterspell increasing the DC of the check based on the spell level difference betwen the counterspell you cast and the spell being countered.
This was the first thing that came in my mind when they were talking about moving it to a saving throw. I also would make it a save VS the associated casting attribute.
The reason for people casting spells by saying just the name. Is because no one has the imagination to come up with any incantation for their spells. That's not D&D fault. That's the player's fault. Also, there are ways for both npcs and pcs to mess with each others spell DC and Spell attack. And personally I love counterspell. Because it's so fun playing as a Sorcerer with the metamagic subtle spell. It's the perfect counter to counterspell. Or any other condition that would otherwise render me mute or physically disable.
I feel like this spell dual system needs refinement (which given this video is 8 months old, may have happened. ) If im understanding correctly that countering a spell is all-or-nothing, then it's forcing all or nothing behavior, and that will feel really bad. Countering a spell is really inefficient, puts you on the back foot, and costs resources you'd spend damaging an enemy just to negate their action. So you'll only bother to do it if you really really need to do that action. So given that you're only dyeling when forced to, you can't risk all these resources and not suceed. So you have to spend all the mana you can to boot. And a D20 offers waay too much varience on success when you're taking about bonuses of +1 or +3 to success. So you spend actions inefficiently, you spend mana on top of it because you have to, and the best case scenario is that you negate their action. And worst case you spent all that and acomplish nothing. And you apparently have to do this all without even knowing the number the incoming spell rolled, so you don't even know if it's possible to counter or if it even needs to be countered or might've just missed. This just sounds like a really cool concept that will suck mechanically, only being invoked when forced, and then feeling regular bad or double bad depending on success or failure. Two suggested changes, but obviously need playtesting: 1) The roll for the spell being challenged is known before the challenge, so you know what you're getting yourself into. 2)The result of the losing spell is subtracted from the winning spell (maybe minus 1 or 2 points, or maybe by half its value) so that even if you don't beat the incoming spell, you weaken it. 2b) If the challenger beats the incoming spell, it does its net damage to the original caster (minus a point or two , or maybe half the net value) so the primary spell does a bit over net when making it through, and the countering a bit under net when it counters. Not sure how to make weakening/overpowering work for non-damaging spells. Maybe if the spell is something like paralyze with a saving throw, countering (failed) with N points of damage grants (N-2 or N/2) advantages for the saving throw? And a success reflects the spell effect at the original caster with initial disadvantage with stacking advantage depending on how hard it was overpowered? Harder to say here. But the idea of overpowering a spell causing the original caster's spell to be reflected seems more fun than the spell chosen by the duel challenger overflowing and pushing through. It also limits what a player can do when not-their-turn; you don't want to let someone skip the initiative order to cast some chosen spell by picking a weak low-rolling firebolt to duel with some massive attack or debuff. At best all they can do is turn their opponent's spell back on them. This could also cap reflected damage too. Love the D20 system overall, and this is a cool concept, but i just can't see liking the mechanic in play as-is. It seems like it'll only come up for dramatic moments - but also more often than not just make for dramatically bad moments rather than good ones. Overall this seems out-of-step with a lot of the rest of the D20 philosophy, where you actively work against some of the all-or-nothing scenarios native to DnD.
Question: if your bonus to spell duals is dependent on how much mana you spend on your spells, does mana reduction effects like the wizard school specialization make your spells weaker in that reguard?
I'm coming at this as someone who pledged on KS and likes a lot of the mechanics of this system. There is nothing inherent to DC20 stopping players from giving the same milquetoast descriptions of a spell duel. And there's definitely nothing in DnD or PF stopping players from giving epic descriptions of how they counterspell. Even the best mechanics can't *force* roleplay.
True, but the mere fact that a player has to choose an actual spell from their spell list to counter whatever is happening forces the player a bit more into the mindset of their character. Sure, with Counterspell a DM or creative player may add flavor to the spell and describe how it works, but 1.) that’s not a given and 2.) Counterspell seems likely to be described as more of a mute button or off switch to all spells rather than change based off the situation. With the spell duel mechanic, the player, like the PC, has to think, “What in my repertoire of spells might counteract the spell I see forming before me?”
So Monk gets Opportunity Attack instead of this? It makes sense that they would, but listening to this video and the other ones talking about casters I kept thinking of DragonBall. Beam duels, Spirit Bombs and whatnot.
Two Questions: 1. I read the rules and I couldn’t find examples of what happens when you roll great for a Spellcheck with a spell like Phantasmal Force 2. what do you do when the enemy has a high level spell and you just Spell Duel it with a low level spell? Is there a consequence for that?
I just discover dc recently and im still studying but I wonder, if multiple people can enhance other friends spell cast with mana why is not possible to enhance a friend "counterspell" with mana? This way is the enemy roll super well and we all role bad but add togheder out mana can still have a chance
So maybe I just misted this part but what about half-casters or Martial classes that took feature that gives them magic? Can they spell duel? And if yes that that mean they have both Martial reaction and Magic reactions?
So I have in my game where anyone with magic can use any spell to counter a spell. The game mechanics: both players roll there spell dc against each other. The spells have to be the same level or higher. Both players roll there damage. The player that won the duel will reduce their damage by the losers damage roll.
I think action points should reset at the start of your turn. That way you have to actually use foresight in combat and risk losing out on one of your actions because you're expecting to need to use counterspell. This is much more fun and tactical than just getting less resources for your next turn. It's a decision rather than just an obligatory resource drain because counterspelling a strong spell is always going to be the right action to take. Resources refreshing at the start of the round essentially allows for more skill expression by the players. It will also limit the amount of counterspell spam. Now that i think about it, this is just how magic the gathering works. Except it feels shitty in magic cuz unless your deck is optimized to shit you're probably going to have floating mana left over regardless of if you're anticipating the need for a counterspell. So it's not as much of a choice in that game. I don't think a D20 game will encounter this problem though.
Would the player characters have succeeded in the spell duel if two of the casters provided help to the caster who had the greatest chance of winning the spell duel?
I'm not sure the spell duelling is fair risk/reward the way you describe it. The one initiating the spell duel to try to counter someone else's spell, at best, is trading action points and mana to maintain the status quo; at worst, they entirely waste their action points and mana and achieve nothing. Whereas for the original spellcaster, at worst they trade their action points and mana, but at best they get both their original spell *and* their opponent loses half their action points and mana. Unless winning the spell duel does something more than just cancel the spell? Can they invest into it further to do more? (E.g. the Cone of Cold example--if they counter the fireball, can they also freeze the spellcaster or do AoE damage?)
Question: In that situation where a spellcaster casts a fireball and another player spell duels against them to try and counter it. Can that original caster who was casting fireball spell duel against the spell duel incoming against them? Example: Spell caster casts fireball, defending spell caster initiates a spell duel with his own cone of cold and original caster tries to spell duel, trying to dominate the mind of the defending spell caster casting cone of cold to stop them from using it. Is that possible?
Love the idea, doesn't find the execution compelling. How come a spell being duelled by three people keeps its exact potency? In my opinion, either make the check easier for each consecutive person who'll duel it, or make the spell a bit weaker for each failed try. Still, a most excellent concept ! Good luck for your project !
Love the idea but hate how it steals away something precious and powerful from abjuration magic and those that use it (abjuration is my favorite school of magic I’m all about protecting). Idk much about dc20 but I personally love schools of magic. Is there a version of abjuration magic one could use to activate a spell duel like counterspell but with the same mechanics of dc20?
Is the Duel contest a simple pass/fail, or can the countering caster mitigate some of the power of the spell they're fighting even if they don't completely stop it?
you mean the counter spell system in 3.5? because this just sounds alot like that. You cant just counter fireball with a spell slot in older editions you had to take a readied action to counter spell, and when the enemy casts a spell you had to choose an appropriate spell OR cast dispel magic which required a caster level check--- i dunno this just kinda of sounds like an older system refurbished for DC20. Which i'm fine with but... really does just sound like bringing back an older system and refining it a bit. and i admit the older counter spell system was a bit clunky, but it was better then the way 5e handles it.
So, the same way counterspelling worked in 3.5? You could counter a spell with a copy of the same spell, an appropriate opposite spell or the actual spell, counterspell. The actual counterspell was rarely used except in pretty rare circumstances where you simply had to reliably be able to prevent an enemy spell, however spell preparation worked differently than in 5e because you couldn't just use any spell slot for any of your spells. In 3.5 (most classes) spell preparation involved deciding exactly how many copies of each spell you had at each level. Your hitpoint death system just sounds like 3.5 again. You die at -10 and while you are downed you lose 1 hitpoint per turn. The more i hear about the system youre trying to make, the more it just seems you just want to be playing third edition.
@@bryan__m I know, I've made a similar comment on other videos of his and just think it bears repeating because most of what he's doing already exists in an older edition or are mechanics from other systems that are super clunky and don't work well (or even at all in a practical sense of play).
@@QCreyton agreed. Or things that work well within their system but are clunky ported to 5e. I follow the channel because it gets the brain juices flowing, even if I'm not going to use any of the systems as-is.
So if I'm an invisible sorcerer who casts subtle fireball, is it subject to being countered? The correct response is heck no. Firstly, you're unaware of where it originates from. You've no idea it's being cast or who's casting it, and finally, there's no mechanism to know what spell you should cast that would counter a spell. If you're going to make a requirement that's needed to counter there needs to be a mechanism in place that the opposing caster has for determining the makeup of the spell being cast. For example you used cone of cold assuming here cold or opposing element being required to counter. Why is cold required could not any spell be used? Secondly, if I'm casting a 5th level cone of cold vs a 3rd level fire ball there's a built in level disparity. Does a weaker level five spell beat a strong level 3 spell? If not why not? The spell effectively is by default more powerful, hence the higher level. It's a great idea if implemented well and this seems clunky. In 5E there's steps a caster can take to avoid spells being countered. Contrary to what most say attacking doesn't necessarily reveal your location in 5E per rules as written.
Just cane from watching the multiclassing video, and I'm curious if a martial getting mana from multiclassing allows them to do spell duels too? Or is it just only casters can still do this?
@TheDungeonCoach oh I had no idea that it was a spell. Very interesting. Thanks coach! You're an inspiration and I can't wait to keep supporting you in the years to come
I don't understand Coach, pretty much everything you've described in DC20 stacks. Why wouldn't those 3 spells in the final example collectively weaken the bolt to nothing?
The mechanic DOES stack :) The 3 casters cast 3 spells and made a total of 3d20s vs the casters 1d20, so they DID stack their magic together. I think if it just became an "auto win" then that wouldnt be nearly as interesting
@@TheDungeonCoach oh ok! So because they are casting 3 DIFFERENT spells the players get 3 d20 *attempts* to be the Unholy Cleric. Makes much more dramatic sense. If the three casters were casting 1 spell together, would you sum their 3 rolls or would it be like having double advantage? Thank you so much for all your hard work Coach. I have always been a rules light guy because I felt like so many rules heavy games were clunky and inflexible. DC20 just makes sense and I can't wait to bring it to my table!
Spell Duel should be one action or not to demand a test at all. The dueling mage will always lose 2 actions, regardless of the result, while the dueled mage might not lose anything. In truth, the dueled mage might be in advantage even if he loses the duel.
Literally started designing a Wizard subclass just for this dueling mechanic and realized, it should just be a framework mechanic for the game. You were right on the money with this DC!
A big part of this is that even when at zero a player isn’t unconscious; they still get to role play.
And even when at 1 players are vulnerable to instant death.
This solves so many issues with 5e.
Haven't read that section yet; please explain what happens at 1 & 0 HP?
@@prophetzarquon1922 So, you die when you get to a negative HP equal to your prime modifier.
So even at 1 HP, while you can act normally, a single crit, or even a decent brutal/heavy hit can instantly kill you. Wereas in 5e, you are pretty safe from a single hit except maybe below level 3 because of how ridiculous the massive damage rules are.
The most awesome thing is what happens in the range of 0 and in negative numbers that don't kill you. You are on "Death's Door" and can only take one action on each of your turns. I think you also need to roll a death save or lose 1 hp.
So you get to continue to RP right up to the moment of actual death, rather than being unconscious, or being yo-yoed back and forth between up and down.
@@insertphrasehere15 Interesting! I like how the 4 point per turn action economy, lends itself to "barely doing", rather than waffling between "100% power at 1HP" & total incapacitation.
That 'Prime Modifier' thing walks a fine line: Being able to apply it to anything one has specialized in, makes good sense mechanically & thematically; having it apply to _everything_ would reduce uniqueness & run counter to the real-world phenomena of people becoming better at what they do & worse at things they don't, with age. I find the concept promising, but I haven't studied it in use, yet.
I just flash my Uno reverse card. Then run away laughing.
The idea that’s always supposed to have been a mechanic. Nice. I just ask players to describe the effects.
This idea is why I dislike counterspell so much. In comparison to a spell duel, counterspell seems so limp. Then comes the cheese of counterspelling counterspell chains and the counterspell arms race.
I translated that into 5e using Spell DC and Attack Bonus
So the reason this works so well in DC20 is the action system, yes it's thematically cooler, but the game feel comes from that action point system, I tried making this in dnd and it was so complicated.
In 5e you trade a reaction for an action which is a massive trade for the counterspell user to gain, resulting in the spell being super strong and boarderliner mandatory.
Forcing a spell duel always costs you 2 AP for your next turn and atleast 1 mana which means there is always a cost to counterspelling that is proportional to what you are stopping.
I think that the idea of pushing the narrative as the primary concern is what makes the difference. I've had 5e games with specific people in which a level 5 adventure feels like an epic, just because of how the players describe their actions.
What I'm saying here, then, is, do not be surprised if, despite your system pushing narrative hard, you still have people that just say "I cast ________ to spell duel. I rolled. I succeed/fail."
The best tool we have here is for the GM to ask the magical question: "How do you perform that action?"
I love the idea of spell duels, though... I really can't stand counterspell... or legendary resistances, for that matter.
This system definitely needs more attention
Wow thank you for that! Stay tuned for next Livestream!
Maybe if there was another person explaining the system, one who didn't explain it like a 12-year-old boy playing with his toys, the system would have more attention. Seriously, every day I get lazier watching these videos.
@@caurdwow it's almost like he is excited about his work and is excited to talk about his creation 🤔. It's a better presentation than the big devs talking about new DND content
@@masonweaver5005 Yes, but you can be excited like an adult. Saving childish phrases like "it blows your mind" or "it's incredibly incredible."
And, above all, he could try to stop discrediting other systems and acting as if he invented Coca-Cola, taking credit for things that are in fact the creations of others.
@@caurd Fair statement. I and others enjoy his style of enthusiasm, but I can see where you are coming from. Those phrases can be seen as childish, but again we are talking about a game of "make believe". Fair points though.
I really love the cinematic spell duels!
I'm buying DC20 as soon as it's officially launched.
i can't wait to see who you brought on board from the UA-cam ttrpg community.
Make sure you catch the live stream next Tuesday! 😇
Thanks for the love! I appreciate it
Pretty cool way to buff lackluster spells like cone of cold. Sometimes its necessary to counter fireball
I’m thinking in my 5e game, I’m gonna combine Counterspell and Dispel Magic. While also incorporating spell duels as a main mechanic
If all you want is the imagery, then all you need to do is to rewrite the flavor text of counterspell. Just describe counterspell as a spell that counters the effect of the countered spell.
Countering a fireball just requires you to say you summon a geyser of water that clashes with the fireball and expodes into a cloud of steam. Mechanically no difference required to change the imagery.
You summon a cloud of darkness that blocks the hypnotic from view.
The visuals are completely accessible without any need for homebrew.
Of course you can always flavor spells to do and look any way you want. The change was at a foundational level to the rules, the side benefit is the flavor 👍🏼
@@TheDungeonCoach I just wanted to separate the two, because some people may want one but not the other.
We actually play tested the spell duel tie...both rolled a 15; on the Wild Magic surge, the Dragonborn bard turned into a sheep (which the DM allowed to make a single breath weapon attack) and the dark cleric couldn't make reactions for 8 turns, we loved it!
While I dont think I fully share the criticisms of the dnd counterspell, I do share the hype of this new system. It sounds incredible
I wish we had more good reaction spells besides shield, counterspell and hellish rebuke.
Exactly! I like the idea of Counterspell as a focused counter against any spell and the idea of others being able to be used, even if in a more niche way.
I really like how you are organizing combat and spell mechanics. This makes more sense about the how this is organized.
I’ve used this system for a little bit in my game after seeing in alkanders almanac and so far I really like it cause it adds this unique feeling countering an enemies spell like now it’s a huge gamble that could lead to a huge boon or a catastrophic result. Also loved the yugioh at the start
The description of the Spell Duel gave me chills. 😲
That just made my day!!
The description of the spell effects triggered me and caused me some anxiety I need my safe space now
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking all along. DC20 feels like an incarnation of all my wishes for a TTRPG system. Love it❤
I didn't realize you were the one developing DC 20! I used to watch your videos all the time and only recently just rediscovered you. I'm definitely going on Kickstarter to back it now
UA-cam must have literally been hiding this channel from me until I searched explicitly for it; I watch RPG & D&D content all the time, & yet I now see that it hasn't suggested a single video from this channel to me since DC20 released...
Feel like these types of rulings are gonna help incentivise being creative and thinking out of the box
It’s good to watch a video where you slow it down enough that We can actually absorb the idea that you are trying to get across to the audience
I was honestly skeptical of this system until you described that playtest. Damn. It does sound really cool!
Thanks man! I really am trying to make the best game system I can!! I appreciate that!
I've been working on both a mana and counter magic system for 5e that work so much like the systems in DC20. I'm so happy to see other people on the same page as me and can't wait to give this system a try!
There’s also ways to do spell combat in AD&1st edition if a spell has a verbal component that you need to use to cast a spell then you would be vulnerable to a silence spell and likewise any spell requiring a target is visible by the attacker would be vulnerable to someone casting a darkness or similar spell
It's the same way in 5e, silence means no verbal components, darkness means no line of sight, hold person/hold monster means no somatic components.
Same way if a martial class wants to break the hand of a spell Caster or crush their windpipe. Prevents those aspects of spell casting, but you can still overcome it with metamagic.
That sounds really cool, but I really need to know how to get such a t-shirt for myself. Seriously, I need one of those.
Using dispel magic for these same design goals, has work consistently over the decades. Cheers! I love your hard work. I hope to earn your subscription.
That was one of the most beautiful description I've heard. This is really inspiring mechanic.
Great video, the table story was on point. Good luck with everything.
This is an amazing system. You're making what D&D should be by now.
Nice I like it. Spell duel concept is a blast. Imagine a scene with a covent of hags 😮.
Gosh, I teared up at the scene's description. What a blast you guys must have had! Kudos to you sir, for creating such an epic system!
ilike your version. However in D&D 5e the DM can still describe how the counterspell looks like when it fails and when it succeeds.
Yea they can but that kinda lose its interaction? The DM decide what happens. Compared to spell duel you need to think a viable way to counter it. Much more interactive
Hei DC , im loving the system so far, i like have a spell duel, but this mechanics I don’t think it’s good for the defenders, first if the atacker wins the spell goes normal, i know its the risk of counterpell doesn’t work, but if the defender wins the two spells are gone the atacker and the defender, its a great advantage to the atacker… and when you have more the 2 defenders if the atacker was good in the dice the defenders don’t have a chance. First i think when you have more than 1 defender the dices must me added, imagine a lich casting a powerful spell than 1 spell defender can’t stop, but 3 casters of the group together can beat the high dice, will be a great moment that group doing something together can be stronger than the powerfull enemy. Sure it’s just a ideia, but i thing will be satisfy for the player and the campaign. Keep the good work
It's a great idea. It took so long to deliver it, that I predicted it before you finish 😂
I don't mind Counterspell, but Counter-Counter and triple Counters and stuff do make it a bit overused... and I think that's mainly due to level. Imagine if it was a level 5 spell instead. That would change it up a lot.
This system does mostly sound cooler. I do believe that in a world of magic, they'd develop a Counterspell if they could, though. So maybe consider making that a high level spell? Like maybe 7 or 8 if you still use spell levels up to 9th.
Also, I still disagree with Casters not being able to make an Opportunity Attack. I know it's sometimes lame when it's like, "Can I punch them as they run by?" "You can certainly try." "Does 17 hit?" "Yes. Roll 1d4 and you do half that in damage unless you're a Monk or Barbarian." Or whatever. But also, it feels kinda hilarious when you get the kill with that. I definitely think Casters should have the option. Especially since they're unlikely to hit, since they don't have a positive modifier, probably. Certainly no Proficiency or anything in punching lmao.
(Except of course a Bladesinger Wizard type, or I think College Of Swords Bard is supposed to be about the same?)
I very much can see Counterspell being a spell that's literally made for spell duelling, essentially being able to use it to spell duel any spell with some bonus (e.g. "As if you spent 2 mana points more than you did.").
[Throws glove at Coach's feet]
IS THAT A DUEL!?!? Hahahaha
@@TheDungeonCoach indeed, sir, defend thineself! Pick your dice, and roll 20 paces.
Lol
I would be crying like a baby at that table. Great work! This is amazing! This is the kind of stuff they'll be talking about whenever someone asks about their hobby.
Ngl, I've been entertaining the idea of running a new campaign after a while of not DMing (been lucky enough to have been able to be a player for the last two years), and the more and more I watch your videos I really really want to use the DC20 system.
I love the symmetry of DC 20 looking forward to giving you my money for this well thought out product
@11:20 "What happens on a tie... that's a very rare chance, it's less than a 1 in 20 chance"
It's actually exactly a 1-in-20 chance for an exact tie.
Modifiers don't generally affect the math much, it's still a 1-in-20 to tie. This is clearly true when you already know what your opponent rolled, since it's easy see that it's a 1 in 20 to get the value you'd need to tie that - the math works out the same even if you don't know their value before your roll. (there's 20 ways to tie a pair of d20s, and 400 ways to roll a pair. 20/400 =1/20)
(technically it's marginally less than 1 in 20 if someone's modifiers are terrible and they minimum roll, or modifiers are too high and they max roll, since this can leave their total out of the possible range that the other person could even reach, but that's also quite rare)
Really awesome video though! I love this system and the visual story it tells. I'm excited to sit down and think about how I can incorporate this into PF1e without removing counterspell either, since I don't actually mind counterspells directly and would like them to remain an option with different upsides and downsides still.
I love this system so much, I can’t wait for DC 20!
This is why during my boss battles i add basically quicktime events in the form of reactions. For example i have this radiant dragon boss in my campaign who i want to use a reaction to challenge opposing spells, especially other radiant spells, with his own or vice versa. He will say something along the lines of "Your measly powers fall short of my brilliant light!" or something like that and that player gets to have a sort of magic tug of war where the loser takes the damage of the original spell and then some. Or i'll add some catastrophic ability the boss would use that can be counteracted by the players all working together to push it back. Example would be an ancient dragon focusing his firepower into a single beam that would easily one shot but the spellcasters get to combine spells to collide with it or block it.
Hey coach, sorry this goes on a few tangents, appreciate your content, and your attention if you read this to it's conclusion.
Regarding the points you make regarding that you hate how slow works in DnD.
Where a player makes a choice. and then that choice has an effect (Despite the fact that the element of chaos is exercised, as the DM rolls the dice for this)
Dice are still being used to determine the outcome of a random event.
What I hate most about DnD and TTRPGs that I've player in general is that the narrative you're trying to tell is almost always a slave to the dice rolls.
Almost always it's considered a cardinal sin for you to do something that's well within your characters means, and just have that happen. There's always some arbitrary check, or there always has to be chance, regardless of how small or large that you'll horrifyingly fail, or expertly succeed.
Recently I broke the seal on a (admittedly very poorly written) TTRPG called Bunkers and Baddasses (Yes like the one mentioned in the borderlands video game franchise) Where the weapon you have equipped had a item card (the same size as a normal playing card) and on that card was a table.
Now, the tables scaled poorly, but I loved the concept that, yes, obviously, 1 was the gun jamming and you needed to reload, but 2-7 was one damage dice 8-13 was 2 damage dice, 14-19 was 3 damage dice and 20 was max damage or double dice, or something like that.
What I'm getting at is the dice roll represented a spectrum of success and not a yes/no outcome.
So the chances of the dice telling you no being limited to just 5%, choices mattered and felt good to make.
When I look at new systems or systems people are making (I'm making one of my own, btw :3 ) I look at how much the choices players make, matter. How integral is the dice roll in determining success. Because I saying 4 words, rolling dice once and being told "Nice try, but get better at rolling dice" and have my choices mean nothing and have no impact. feels bad to play. I like DnD and it will always have a special place in my heart, But for me to want to migrate, or learn a new system it has to offer something new and exciting or fix a problem I percieve as being in DnD.
I started playing a TTRPG with some friends, a star wars one by fantasy flight games, (there's more than one and that'd be like confusing DnD with Pathfinder) Where they don't use numerical dice.
the dice are basically broken up into what I can crudely describe as "yes","no", "and" & "but" with the critical failures and successes acting as "& ALSO"
So you're really good at shooting. You might roll 2d12 and 3d8 that are good (yellow and green)The faces on these dice range from blank, to 1 yes, to 1 and, a yes& an and, 2 yes, 2 and, and the mega yes. but your target is really difficult to hit they might have 1d12 and 2d8 which are bad for you (red & purple) You roll all of them. The yes's and no's cancel out. The ands and buts cancel out, and when you've made sense of the results, you'll be left with a "yes, and", "Yes, but", "No, But" or "no, and" outcome, with a "& Also" on top if you critically succeeded or failed, which doesn't cancel out but exists parralel to the previous staement and each other, you can critically succeed and fail, in addtion to a yes and. In my own system, I intend on social interactions use this method. And thought, if you were open to new ideas and potentially going back to the drawing board, your contested spell mechanic could use this too.
(It also means you could manufacture and produce dice that you can sell alongside this system eh, ehhh ;D)
If that changes what you want too fundamentally, I get it. But please, hear me out.
Spending half of my next turn AND my mana to CONTEST something... creates a cost benefit question when the possible outcomes become yes/no or fail/success.
I fail and then what? I lose my limited /long rest resource (mana) AND I lose half my next turn? That's a steep gamble over an outcome I have no control in. Because we once again end up at the juncture that; if the thing I'm attempting to do fails because you rolled better than me. it's a coin toss. There's no lesson to be learned here. It's a "get good at rolling dice, or suffer the full effects of my choices, while having what choices you can make halved" kind of situation.
That would feel bad for the player that made that choice, spent those resources, is being penalized on his future turn, and had no impact. Obviously this boils down to design philosophy. And if lettign chaos reign supreme and tell the story, then I suppose How you've got things as outlined in this video is probably optimal and as intended, ready to be shipped. But hear me out;
What if you focused on making player choices matter more? What could that look like?
If, instead fireball works as it would to those familiar with 5e fireball where players in the radius make the save where succeeding their save causes them to take half, failing to take full.
Contested spell outcome could instead of "yes/no" be a "yes/no, BUT"
the fireball spell when contested, now failing that save takes half damage, and passing the save, you're fine.
The player that contested the spell doesn't "waste" their resources and action ecnomy even if they fail, thus their choice to do it wasn't validated or invalidated by the dice roll.
Love your channel. Love your content. If you want to reach out, and collab, the offer is open and I in fact extend that invitation!
Keep up the great videos. Excited to see what you tackle next
I mean, you want martials to always hit and have no chance to miss aswell? And have every enemy automatically fail every save? I don't get your point what you want is to automatically succeed at everything and that won't happen. And dice are use specifically to make the results random and to not always have the same result, because that would be incredibly boring
You expected someone to read that?
nullifying someone else's spell seems like something a powerful character should be able to do if theres a large gap in power.
The issue with DnD's counterspell is that it is just way too cheap. Counterspell should only be a guarantee for spells 2 levels lower than the counterspell's level.
You shouldnt be able to turn a Wish spell into a fart unless you are the god of magic.
Something I am thinking of doing in my game is have each spell cast that deals damage have them both roll and the lower cancels out that much damage from the other. For example if the fireball rolled 20 damage and the cone of cold rolled 15 then the fireball still deals 5 damage. The question then I guess is if the cone of cold is trying to counter the fireball and rolled 20 and the fireball rolled 15 and the caster of the fireball is within range of the cone of cold should the cone of cold deal 5 damage to the other caster.
In that scenario I personally would say yes IF the cone of cold was originally aimed at the opposing caster and not say in between them and a party member. That's just my opinion.
My question about having the right spell to counter is how do you know which spell the enemy is casting? There wasn't anything in the video about identifying the spell that is being cast... it sounds like it enters the meta -- you hear the characters say "I'm casting fireball" so you know the character is casting fireball... a little too meta for my tastes.
When we talked about my spell duel system at LairCon 1, which this sounds like it was based on, there was a skill check to figure out what spell was being cast. I think that's what is missing from this system. I'd probably have to homebrew the system to re-institute that skill roll in order to make this work.
Nobody cares
Would be cool if there was a wizard subclass that focuses on spell duels!
Comment 1- trace buster buster
Comment 2- sleep counters haste.
I know I'm late to the party, but I bought the 0.4 alpha last night!
See THIS I like!
While not a game designer, i an a DM and have some thoughts.
9:25 you say that the player has to initiate a spell duel after the DM rolls the die for his spell check but BEFORE the result of the roll is read. This could be a bit of an issue in two ways 1) this requires to announce a spell, halt the pace and double check to see if anyone wants to initiate a duel, and only then announce what happens. Its much more natural to say "BBG is going to cast with fireball, and rolls a 16" just like he describes an attack roll. As is, this could be slow, clunky, and confusing and kind of resembles an issue people have with the timing of counterspell in 5e.
2) this kind of robs your players of a strategic choice. We know that a lower spell check results in a weaker and easier to beat spell, and higher makes it deal more dmg but is harder to stop. You already have a risk/reward system built in, let your players take advantage of it. Do i want to spend my mana points on a small spell because ik i can succeed or do i want to save it for a major spell that is riskier but way more scary?
3:23 this may be my personal preference, but i really want my combat rules to be cut and dry. Something like "must make sense" is too vague and up to interepation. A player may try to spell duel in a way that the dm doesnt like and vice versa. Even in your cone of cold vs fireball example. To me fire beats ice everytime, fire is hot and melts the ice making it null and void. Having something like "only spells of the same school can spell duel" would make things more clear and not boil down to personal interpretation. Idk if your system has spell schools, but having 2 or 3 would be enough for this solution.
Ftr, overall i love this concept and it looks well thought out and fun to play. Would love to try DC20 with some friends sometime
I'll be honest. I freaking LOVE counterspell. I stopped playing 5e as my main game years ago but was able to make the end of a campaign we were in based on strixhaven. Because everyone were spellcasters, the counterspell wars were INSANE. Easily it's the most fun I've ever had in 5e. And each time someone fired a counterspell, because we only had one reaction, there was HUGE opportunity costs to counterspelling, not to mention upcasting them so they couldn't be counterspelled back. There was also this strategy we had of burning legendary resistance in order to be able to land that huge hold monster on the final boss so we could end the counter with our martials critting the heck out of them.
I think your system is an interesting alternative, and more story based. It reminds me of powered by the apocalypse, which is cool in its own right but it makes me sad when people say counterspell wars are boring. They are only as boring as the amount of third level counterspells slung
What's your main system?
I would think that a "rock paper scissors" style chart for this would work to make simple rules.
Love the vid, but 2:23 just isn't true. While counterspelling is VERY strong, and probably the prime conterder for your reaction, casters can have many reaction options. E.g. Shield, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Cutting Words (and some other similar class features), and to a lesser degree there's also the War Caster reaction. I'd say that Casters might have even more reaction options than martials (and that's a shame).
This sounds so much better narratively than what I've seen in D&D, and a clear improvement mechanically over counterspell, but I'm not convinced that it addresses the core problem with counterspell.
My experience tends to be that one side has a lot more resources than the other and, if they have counterspell, they can completely shut down the casters on the other side. I would expect this to make a lot of casters either feel useless or like they have to spend most/all of their resources on spell duals in these situations. And, since all casters get it, this could make it really frustrating to make any progress in a battle with other casters. It would be like if martials could contest each others attack rolls
The only problem I see about needing to activate an effect after roll but before the number is called is the short window of irl time. If they roll and call before you form the words( which I’ve seen happen on a few occasions) you’re out of Lucky feat.
True and if the group you're playing with is anything like mine sometimes you can go 10 minutes or more without getting a word in unless you yell. We're a boisterous crew.
As someone who's exclusively played martial classes, this makes me actually want to play a spellcaster.
Im making my own D20/D6 original game and I very much do not like 5e and think this would be a cool rule to actually make the entire game surrounded by. As in redo the entire magic system. I think I’m going to have 5 types of magic. Also magic in my thing are let lines and intersect and spread apart with places of intrest at intersects. There is above magic, below magic, both magic, neither magic, and counter magic. I’m going to structure counter magic like it is its own spell and make wizard feel monk like where he gets more attacks and can divulge it to “blocking”. Also going to make wizard a “fantasy” class where unlike dnd wizard fight a character/ monsters Hit dice (like the original chainmail dnd) rather than actual. I have a very unique system brewing and i will release it when I can. I suck with numbers tho so that’ll be the hard part for my homebrew but I don’t think I’m changing to too much.
Just finished the video and while i did just stumble to this vid out of random and it was not bad and had some good ideas. As someone who plays barbarians and usually waits for the 3 spell casters to finished their 10 (or less) minutes per turn so me and the fighter can do our 20 (or less) second turn. Me personally, from what was discuss, am hearing a lot of thing spell casters can do in that but if the martial classes are not in range of their melee then they will just sit on the hand and be like they always have been and watch lights in the air happen. If the casters have enough time to cast a whole spell can't the rouge just throw a dagger and get sneak attack, or Barb chucking a rock, I'd just remove counterspell call it a day.
All in all i like the idea.
Since one needs concentration _while_ casting (even if the spell doesn't require it after casting), simply giving everyone a Throw Rock reaction "when you see a creature casting a spell" could pretty much shut down casting while within pelting range...
@@prophetzarquon1922 yeah I was not being fair when caster have limited resources to managed. Not my greatest moment.
@@WiIhelmScream Oh, I _do_ think martials should have more means of preventing a casting; casters run away with the game, toward higher levels. It's tricky to create rules that buff against control tactics, though...
finally Ars Magica style into D&D
By the sound of things, the War Caster Feat won't be part of DC20RPG? I ask because that Feat allows a caster to make an AoO with a spell if it affects a single target.
It can be a Talent (Feat), but a PC would need to be a Paladin (Martial/Spellcaster) or pickup a Multiclassing Talent (available at 2nd, 4th, 7th, and 10th through 20th level).
Just like what Eddie said, it will be a feat, and there will even be SPELLS that let you do an AoO too!
You might not play the card game Magic: the Gathering, but I tell you, us Blue wizards LOVE Counterspell as is. It’s a beautiful traditional rite of passage for every Blue mage to find the joy of stripping away any magics your foes might hope to cast. Deny them the right to the very duel itself.
That being said, we’re overdue for some more spectacular clashing of spells. But just to give you a bit of background about where Counterspell comes from. It’s an entire school of magic with its own elaborate and degenerately overpowered history. The Blue wizards may shove it back in eventually anyways.
so in the scenario you describe at the end, would a GM not be able to allow players to aid each other if they had similar enough spells? I would like to have seen an option for 3 characters wanting to do the same thing to somehow stack the check so one just say gives advantage on the check and another with the same spell type adds 5 or something. So same narrative need but a cooperative stack instead of 3 characters doing their own thing. Any consideration for this type of play?
Do you think Sorcerers could counter an enemy's spell by using metamagic Careful Spell to sure the spell no longer affects their allies? Or, in regards to your idea of combos between allies, use metamagic on their Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Warlock buddy's spells to Twin/Quicken/Subtle/Careful Spell?
4:10 freezaaa
I homebrew counterspell increasing the DC of the check based on the spell level difference betwen the counterspell you cast and the spell being countered.
This was the first thing that came in my mind when they were talking about moving it to a saving throw.
I also would make it a save VS the associated casting attribute.
DnD has mana pool as well.
The reason for people casting spells by saying just the name. Is because no one has the imagination to come up with any incantation for their spells. That's not D&D fault. That's the player's fault. Also, there are ways for both npcs and pcs to mess with each others spell DC and Spell attack. And personally I love counterspell. Because it's so fun playing as a Sorcerer with the metamagic subtle spell. It's the perfect counter to counterspell. Or any other condition that would otherwise render me mute or physically disable.
@TheDungeonCoach where do I get that shirt? I looked on your merch page. Is it an old design or did you get it elsewhere?
I feel like this spell dual system needs refinement (which given this video is 8 months old, may have happened. )
If im understanding correctly that countering a spell is all-or-nothing, then it's forcing all or nothing behavior, and that will feel really bad.
Countering a spell is really inefficient, puts you on the back foot, and costs resources you'd spend damaging an enemy just to negate their action. So you'll only bother to do it if you really really need to do that action.
So given that you're only dyeling when forced to, you can't risk all these resources and not suceed. So you have to spend all the mana you can to boot. And a D20 offers waay too much varience on success when you're taking about bonuses of +1 or +3 to success.
So you spend actions inefficiently, you spend mana on top of it because you have to, and the best case scenario is that you negate their action. And worst case you spent all that and acomplish nothing.
And you apparently have to do this all without even knowing the number the incoming spell rolled, so you don't even know if it's possible to counter or if it even needs to be countered or might've just missed.
This just sounds like a really cool concept that will suck mechanically, only being invoked when forced, and then feeling regular bad or double bad depending on success or failure.
Two suggested changes, but obviously need playtesting:
1) The roll for the spell being challenged is known before the challenge, so you know what you're getting yourself into.
2)The result of the losing spell is subtracted from the winning spell (maybe minus 1 or 2 points, or maybe by half its value) so that even if you don't beat the incoming spell, you weaken it.
2b) If the challenger beats the incoming spell, it does its net damage to the original caster (minus a point or two , or maybe half the net value) so the primary spell does a bit over net when making it through, and the countering a bit under net when it counters.
Not sure how to make weakening/overpowering work for non-damaging spells. Maybe if the spell is something like paralyze with a saving throw, countering (failed) with N points of damage grants (N-2 or N/2) advantages for the saving throw? And a success reflects the spell effect at the original caster with initial disadvantage with stacking advantage depending on how hard it was overpowered? Harder to say here. But the idea of overpowering a spell causing the original caster's spell to be reflected seems more fun than the spell chosen by the duel challenger overflowing and pushing through. It also limits what a player can do when not-their-turn; you don't want to let someone skip the initiative order to cast some chosen spell by picking a weak low-rolling firebolt to duel with some massive attack or debuff. At best all they can do is turn their opponent's spell back on them. This could also cap reflected damage too.
Love the D20 system overall, and this is a cool concept, but i just can't see liking the mechanic in play as-is. It seems like it'll only come up for dramatic moments - but also more often than not just make for dramatically bad moments rather than good ones. Overall this seems out-of-step with a lot of the rest of the D20 philosophy, where you actively work against some of the all-or-nothing scenarios native to DnD.
Wow that was a great moment , nice rule
Sounds similar to Dungeon Crawl Classic Spell duels with potentially some improvement. DCC spell duels are a little clunky.
Question: if your bonus to spell duals is dependent on how much mana you spend on your spells, does mana reduction effects like the wizard school specialization make your spells weaker in that reguard?
I'm coming at this as someone who pledged on KS and likes a lot of the mechanics of this system.
There is nothing inherent to DC20 stopping players from giving the same milquetoast descriptions of a spell duel. And there's definitely nothing in DnD or PF stopping players from giving epic descriptions of how they counterspell.
Even the best mechanics can't *force* roleplay.
True, but the mere fact that a player has to choose an actual spell from their spell list to counter whatever is happening forces the player a bit more into the mindset of their character. Sure, with Counterspell a DM or creative player may add flavor to the spell and describe how it works, but 1.) that’s not a given and 2.) Counterspell seems likely to be described as more of a mute button or off switch to all spells rather than change based off the situation. With the spell duel mechanic, the player, like the PC, has to think, “What in my repertoire of spells might counteract the spell I see forming before me?”
So Monk gets Opportunity Attack instead of this? It makes sense that they would, but listening to this video and the other ones talking about casters I kept thinking of DragonBall. Beam duels, Spirit Bombs and whatnot.
Two Questions: 1. I read the rules and I couldn’t find examples of what happens when you roll great for a Spellcheck with a spell like Phantasmal Force
2. what do you do when the enemy has a high level spell and you just Spell Duel it with a low level spell? Is there a consequence for that?
I just discover dc recently and im still studying but I wonder, if multiple people can enhance other friends spell cast with mana why is not possible to enhance a friend "counterspell" with mana? This way is the enemy roll super well and we all role bad but add togheder out mana can still have a chance
So maybe I just misted this part but what about half-casters or Martial classes that took feature that gives them magic? Can they spell duel? And if yes that that mean they have both Martial reaction and Magic reactions?
So I have in my game where anyone with magic can use any spell to counter a spell. The game mechanics: both players roll there spell dc against each other. The spells have to be the same level or higher. Both players roll there damage. The player that won the duel will reduce their damage by the losers damage roll.
I'd love to hear elaboration on this and maybe an example
I think action points should reset at the start of your turn. That way you have to actually use foresight in combat and risk losing out on one of your actions because you're expecting to need to use counterspell. This is much more fun and tactical than just getting less resources for your next turn. It's a decision rather than just an obligatory resource drain because counterspelling a strong spell is always going to be the right action to take.
Resources refreshing at the start of the round essentially allows for more skill expression by the players. It will also limit the amount of counterspell spam.
Now that i think about it, this is just how magic the gathering works. Except it feels shitty in magic cuz unless your deck is optimized to shit you're probably going to have floating mana left over regardless of if you're anticipating the need for a counterspell. So it's not as much of a choice in that game. I don't think a D20 game will encounter this problem though.
Would the player characters have succeeded in the spell duel if two of the casters provided help to the caster who had the greatest chance of winning the spell duel?
Also, can a player use an additional action to get advantage, or is that only on the turn?😊
I'm not sure the spell duelling is fair risk/reward the way you describe it. The one initiating the spell duel to try to counter someone else's spell, at best, is trading action points and mana to maintain the status quo; at worst, they entirely waste their action points and mana and achieve nothing. Whereas for the original spellcaster, at worst they trade their action points and mana, but at best they get both their original spell *and* their opponent loses half their action points and mana. Unless winning the spell duel does something more than just cancel the spell? Can they invest into it further to do more? (E.g. the Cone of Cold example--if they counter the fireball, can they also freeze the spellcaster or do AoE damage?)
Question: In that situation where a spellcaster casts a fireball and another player spell duels against them to try and counter it. Can that original caster who was casting fireball spell duel against the spell duel incoming against them?
Example:
Spell caster casts fireball, defending spell caster initiates a spell duel with his own cone of cold and original caster tries to spell duel, trying to dominate the mind of the defending spell caster casting cone of cold to stop them from using it.
Is that possible?
How do you foresee someone countering a spell which has no projectile that “just happens” such as Hold Person?
I would assume not every spell can be dueled? I may be wrong however.
what if u cast the dome or barrier around the caster of fireball it prevents the fireball and do dmg around that guy who cast it ?
Love the idea, doesn't find the execution compelling.
How come a spell being duelled by three people keeps its exact potency?
In my opinion, either make the check easier for each consecutive person who'll duel it, or make the spell a bit weaker for each failed try.
Still, a most excellent concept !
Good luck for your project !
I home brewed “mana” in AD&D 40 years ago. So glad a smart, passionate person is bringing it mainstream
Love the idea but hate how it steals away something precious and powerful from abjuration magic and those that use it (abjuration is my favorite school of magic I’m all about protecting). Idk much about dc20 but I personally love schools of magic. Is there a version of abjuration magic one could use to activate a spell duel like counterspell but with the same mechanics of dc20?
Is the Duel contest a simple pass/fail, or can the countering caster mitigate some of the power of the spell they're fighting even if they don't completely stop it?
you mean the counter spell system in 3.5? because this just sounds alot like that. You cant just counter fireball with a spell slot in older editions you had to take a readied action to counter spell, and when the enemy casts a spell you had to choose an appropriate spell OR cast dispel magic which required a caster level check--- i dunno this just kinda of sounds like an older system refurbished for DC20. Which i'm fine with but... really does just sound like bringing back an older system and refining it a bit.
and i admit the older counter spell system was a bit clunky, but it was better then the way 5e handles it.
Love it!
The DC20 RPG System... Perfect! Spell Duels? Brilliant! Awesome Coach. We are here for you.
So, the same way counterspelling worked in 3.5? You could counter a spell with a copy of the same spell, an appropriate opposite spell or the actual spell, counterspell. The actual counterspell was rarely used except in pretty rare circumstances where you simply had to reliably be able to prevent an enemy spell, however spell preparation worked differently than in 5e because you couldn't just use any spell slot for any of your spells. In 3.5 (most classes) spell preparation involved deciding exactly how many copies of each spell you had at each level.
Your hitpoint death system just sounds like 3.5 again. You die at -10 and while you are downed you lose 1 hitpoint per turn.
The more i hear about the system youre trying to make, the more it just seems you just want to be playing third edition.
He started playing with 5e. This channel has a long history of accidentally recreating 3.x mechanics.
@@bryan__m I know, I've made a similar comment on other videos of his and just think it bears repeating because most of what he's doing already exists in an older edition or are mechanics from other systems that are super clunky and don't work well (or even at all in a practical sense of play).
@@QCreyton agreed. Or things that work well within their system but are clunky ported to 5e. I follow the channel because it gets the brain juices flowing, even if I'm not going to use any of the systems as-is.
So if I'm an invisible sorcerer who casts subtle fireball, is it subject to being countered?
The correct response is heck no. Firstly, you're unaware of where it originates from. You've no idea it's being cast or who's casting it, and finally, there's no mechanism to know what spell you should cast that would counter a spell. If you're going to make a requirement that's needed to counter there needs to be a mechanism in place that the opposing caster has for determining the makeup of the spell being cast.
For example you used cone of cold assuming here cold or opposing element being required to counter. Why is cold required could not any spell be used?
Secondly, if I'm casting a 5th level cone of cold vs a 3rd level fire ball there's a built in level disparity. Does a weaker level five spell beat a strong level 3 spell?
If not why not? The spell effectively is by default more powerful, hence the higher level.
It's a great idea if implemented well and this seems clunky.
In 5E there's steps a caster can take to avoid spells being countered. Contrary to what most say attacking doesn't necessarily reveal your location in 5E per rules as written.
Just cane from watching the multiclassing video, and I'm curious if a martial getting mana from multiclassing allows them to do spell duels too? Or is it just only casters can still do this?
Reactions are 2 AP? that seems wild. I thought everything short of spells was 1
You answered your question in the question :)
Spell Duels ARE a spell, so it is 2 AP to be balanced.
ALL other reactions are 1 AP :)
@TheDungeonCoach oh I had no idea that it was a spell. Very interesting. Thanks coach! You're an inspiration and I can't wait to keep supporting you in the years to come
I don't understand Coach, pretty much everything you've described in DC20 stacks. Why wouldn't those 3 spells in the final example collectively weaken the bolt to nothing?
The mechanic DOES stack :)
The 3 casters cast 3 spells and made a total of 3d20s vs the casters 1d20, so they DID stack their magic together. I think if it just became an "auto win" then that wouldnt be nearly as interesting
@@TheDungeonCoach oh ok! So because they are casting 3 DIFFERENT spells the players get 3 d20 *attempts* to be the Unholy Cleric. Makes much more dramatic sense.
If the three casters were casting 1 spell together, would you sum their 3 rolls or would it be like having double advantage?
Thank you so much for all your hard work Coach. I have always been a rules light guy because I felt like so many rules heavy games were clunky and inflexible. DC20 just makes sense and I can't wait to bring it to my table!
It is *exactly* a 1 in 20 chance to tie a spell duel, ignoring bonuses.
Can multiple people be on one side of the spell duel, like a 1v3?
counterspelling is still a better description.
counterspelling to initiate a spell duel. 🤷
Spell Duel should be one action or not to demand a test at all.
The dueling mage will always lose 2 actions, regardless of the result, while the dueled mage might not lose anything.
In truth, the dueled mage might be in advantage even if he loses the duel.