Got it. I was using “blue decking” in a fairly general sense. Even blue decking or other denials like land destruction in clearly versus games like MtG (I only dabbled in them long ago) get really frustrating. In general “Lose a turn” or “save or suck” type abilities really piss players off when overused.

IMO some counterspelling is OK, but too many “takebacks” such as this, Shield, etc., can be really frustrating, especially for some character builds. An example would be a character like a Sorcerer, where it’s typical that the spell list will be highly themed. Given that WotC has eliminated higher level spells by telling players they should just up-slot many spells, this can turn a strong build into a feeb really quickly. To some degree… that’s great! I mean my warlock had a fine moment when it became necessary to stab a foe with a dagger. Characters should make sure to have some other things besides just their favorite boomstick. But the way a number of 5E characters are designed, that can be challenging to arrange.

What are some of the issues you have with Counterspell? (I merge it with Dispel Magic in my game just to cut down on the “spell list tax” nature of it.) I don’t care for the fact that it’s based on a stat check as opposed to making use of Arcana or Religion, but I get why they did that. I guess I’d like the skill system to be more important than it is.

Let me rephrase: asymmetrical denial is only ever fun for the denier.

Tabletop RPGs suffer from this less frequently than other games. (The blue deck comment precipitated my comment – along with other TCGs, PvP games, etc.)

Counterspell has a lot of issues with its design, intent, and use. Setting that aside for the moment, it doesn’t bother me because it’s a spell most parties are going to have access to in their own right. The same with dispel magic. There just needs to be story build up for the tension to play right. That’s what tabletops allow to occur that other games featuring denial often lack. As you even point out, it’s up to the DM to use it judiciously.

In the case of a blue deck, my objective is to win – not for you to have fun (in most cases). This is the opposite of most tabletop sessions (in most cases).

I’m not sure I’d go that far. Sometimes a properly timed Counterspell can be fun and add to the game, either for or against the PCs. But definitely this needs to be used in moderation or it gets really stale and stops being “optimal frustration” and starts being c–kblocking.

An encounter design that features Counterspell might be one that has several lower level supporting wizards with it who are countering a PC sorcerer or wizard who usually does a lot of area effect damage. This can make for a fun tactical challenge with the big caster locked down for a while or forced to use higher level slots. It would be very thematic in a climactic encounter with an enemy who’s very prepared for the PCs and really push tension up for a few rounds until the PCs figure out how to deal with the Counterspell brigade.

If damage is preferable or to have variation, an alternative version of the Counterspell brigade would be the Magic Missile brigade, lower level wizards who coordinate firing Magic Missiles into one target.

No more than about three rounds of this, however.

I’m glad that it’s useful to you!

Protection fighting style/Warding Flare: stated trigger = when you/creaure are attacked. So my group has interpreted that as when attack is declared but before roll made,

Misty Escape: stated trigger = damage taken, RAW ability used after damage dealt but I’ve seen it used a few times where after attack hits but before damage is rolled

Think these could use some clarification. A number of offensive abilities/spells have the qualifier of can be used after an attack roll made but before GM says whether you’ve hit or missed.

Denial is only ever fun for the denier, certainly.

Counterspell duelling and blue decking more generally can be really frustrating. Like off-turn actions, a little bit goes a long way.

I can find nothing to dispute in your points here, save that I think Counterspell dueling has some overall issues when it intersects with encounter design. =)

The 4E bard had a lot of this issue, for instance with the ability to move someone off turn. That could be nice but a lot of times the other character was where they needed to be and so the ability was a wash, but still burned some thought time and slowed the pace of the game down. It also leads to the whole “who’s turn is this, anyway?” problem. There were some other problem spots in 4E’s action economy, too, such as the “attack on a minor action” issue. 4E could have survived this if they’d made those things work only on a Basic attack, which wasn’t nearly so nasty.

Spellcasters use reactions on their own turn a lot when the whole “Counterspell duel” thing goes down. So having only one reaction is generally a good thing. It just really cuts down on off turn action and leads to a window of vulnerability, for instance with a caster having to choose between Shield and Counterspell.

I do think WotC screwed up, though, by making you be unable to do something like move and attack when some condition happens. There’s no really good way to have a situation like “I’ll run in and attack when Balinor opens the door” which just seems ridiculous.

I also find is that not being able to move at all seems to bust up too many plans and so players won’t ready when they really should. Of course there’s no Delaying so often times characters that have high initiatives feel like their turn is wasted and end up Leeroy Jenkins-ing.

Having a Charge action would have helped. I know the reasons why they didn’t put it in, but still, it’s something that’s been in the game forever and it works nicely. Something like, this: Advance and Attack: You move up to half your speed and can take one attack at the end of the movement. This action can be readied.

Or just let people include half move on a Ready, which is even simpler and allows for spellcasting or using an object, all of which make reasonable sense.