I would suggest playtesting this if you can, as that can help give a more direct impression of the impact. YMMV, but in my opinion counterspelling is one of those mechanics you don't actually want to be too good: in another tabletop game we probably all know about, Counterspell is a thing you can do for any spell, just by expending a spell slot, and combat against spellcasters often devolves into pressing the "nope" button against each others' spells (including noping that nope button), which leads to a lot of wasted resources and turns and a lot of associated frustration. The fact that it won't happen often is in my opinion a good thing, and encouraging the Wizard to research a particular opponent's spells and prepare them just for the purpose of counteracting them to me is a good way to lean into the class's fantasy.
Where I can agree that there's disappointment, however, is in the effectiveness of counteract checks: if you're fighting a higher-level spellcaster, your counteract check is likely to fail, and because their spell will almost certainly be of a higher rank than the spells you can cast, your spell will fail to counteract theirs. Thus, Counterspell can easily be ineffective during some of the few times where it comes up. If you think Counterspell is effective when it comes up, then don't mind this, but if not, you could always play with some kind of a bonus to your counteract check, or even a bump to the check's degrees of success, so that when the opportunity comes up to counter an opponent's spell, your caster will be very likely to counteract it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rule that having Dispel Magic prepped counts as having "the same spell" prepared. This means they can load up on Dispel Magic if they want to be counterspelling a lot, or they can research their enemies to memorize the correct spells so they have more options on hand.