So in this scenario, a bard is casting bigsby's hand onto another mage. The mage attempts to cast counterspell, and the bard casts counterspell on the mage. The mage then tries to dispel magic the hand but is just repeatedly counterspelled by the bard. Is there any counter? Is the mage just unable to do anything in this situation?
How did the bard cast counterspell whilst casting Bigby's hand? The bard has used an action to cast a spell. It's still their turn, so even if they have a reaction, they can't cast counterspell to counter the counterspell because they're still casting the current spell. It doesn't work.
How did the bard cast counterspell whilst casting Bigby's hand? The bard has used an action to cast a spell. It's still their turn, so even if they have a reaction, they can't cast counterspell to counter the counterspell because they're still casting the current spell. It doesn't work.
Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Thanks. I still think that shouldn't make sense, but I know how much my opinion is worth here.
Edit: In terms of answering the original question: use higher spell slots. Either the bard will be forced to make a save, or forced to blow spell slots.
so if the counterspell is used at a higher level, will it just void the bard counterspell and go straight for bigby's hand? If he wins the contest against the counterspell, can he keep going with that counterspell to counter the bigby's hand.
There's an order of operations. The most recent counterspell happens first and you work backward - so if person A casts a spell, person B casts Counterspell, person A casts Counterspell, and person C casts Counterspell, then the Counterspell from person C is resolved first - if it succeeds, then person A's Counterspell is nullified, which allows B's Counterspell to resolve against the original spell from person A.
This is all straightforward if you play Magic: The Gathering, but doesn't come up much in D&D so it's totally reasonable to be confused by it all.
And yes, you can take reactions on your own turn (if you have a legal use for one) and can cast as many spells as you have actions for, other than the specific rule that you cannot cast any other spell (other than a 1-action cantrip) on the same turn as a bonus action spell.
That doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. If you are interrupting someone who is interrupting your spell, then by definition you are also interrupting your own spell.
The sequence would be, on Bard's turn: Bard (Action) casts Bigby's Hand, Mage (Reaction) casts Counterspell, Bard (Reaction) casts Counterspell - Bigby's Hand takes effect. Then on Mage's turn: Mage (Action) casts Dispel Magic - the Hand is dispelled. The Bard cannot retaliate at that time because they have already used their reaction until the beginning of their next turn. There is no endless string of counters because reactions are finite.
This situation also assumes that all the counters and dispels were successful. If any failed then things would be different, but with the same restriction on reactions.
The reason why you can counterspell a counterspell is because you have two hands, you only use one for a spell, it only uses a somatic component making it easy to work in, does not require concentration, and there are no rules disallowing it. The only tme you cannot is if you used your bonus action for a spell because you can then no longer use any levelled spells for the rest of your turn (yes, it includes reactions you take on your turn, because its still on your turn). Otherwise you are free to use reactions as normal and it is a reaction spell.
The intention is so the DM can throw a big bad enemy spellcaster at you and not have your mage just counterspell everything they do while the sword swingers of your group hack away. Likewise it means the DM cannot have a mage in the enemy group locking your mage into the "useless" corner by a series of counterspells. Or at least not without DM fiat shenanigans, anyway.
So in this scenario, a bard is casting bigsby's hand onto another mage. The mage attempts to cast counterspell, and the bard casts counterspell on the mage. The mage then tries to dispel magic the hand but is just repeatedly counterspelled by the bard. Is there any counter? Is the mage just unable to do anything in this situation?
First, make sure you are checking the action economy. Counterspell requires a Reaction. You only get one Reaction from the start of your turn to the start of your next turn.
Options for the mage:
She can cast dispel magic using a higher slot. If she counterspells with a level 5 slot and the bard attempts to counterspell using a level 3 slot then the bard must make a DC 15 CHA check. Failure means the counterspell is ineffective.
Depending on which hand the bard chose, she can move to more than 60 feet from the bard and cast dispel magic (120 ft range) from there.
She can cast something else. Magic missile at the bard to trigger lots of concentration checks. Misty step to get away from the bigby's hand. Silence on the bard.
She can cast a lot of cantrips, forcing the bard to use up slots on counterspell. Note, this tactic only works if you use the spell identification rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Those rules require the use of a Reaction as well as a possible INT\Arcana roll to identify a cast spell. In that case, the seqence of actions would be something like the following.
GM: The mage attempts to casts a spell. <Bard player>, do you counterspell? Player: What spell is she casting? GM: You don't know. Do you want to use your Reaction to identify it? If you do, you can't counterspell it, but someone else in the party might be able to do so.
Her minions can pepper the bard with arrows, triggering lots of concentration checks. What, she doesn't have minions? Sheesh, she deserves to get pasted. All mages have minions. even if they call them "fellow party members". :-)
She can drink a potion. I suggest a potion of gaseous form.Giant size and growth would also be useful.
She can cast a lot of cantrips, forcing the bard to use up slots on counterspell. Note, this tactic only works if you use the spell identification rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Those rules require the use of a Reaction as well as a possible INT\Arcana roll to identify a cast spell. In that case, the seqence of actions would be something like the following.
GM: The mage attempts to casts a spell. <Bard player>, do you counterspell? Player: What spell is she casting? GM: You don't know. Do you want to use your Reaction to identify it? If you do, you can't counterspell it, but someone else in the party might be able to do so.
That is the reason I have a pathological hatred of those rules in XgtE. Not being forward with the spells creates a situation that leads to antagonistic play.
I believe the in idea that players and characters have different sets of knowledge, and that's fine. It's why it's intended that the Player knows if the attack hits their AC and by what margin before deciding if they want to use Shield. Some abilities specify the player gets to know the result of the die roll, but not the final number... although this can get silly because it becomes a thing you can suss out.
If you start using those rules it incentives the players to NEVER declare their spell until after giving a counterspell chance. This will slow down play. Because it turns it into a betting phase during poker.
She can cast a lot of cantrips, forcing the bard to use up slots on counterspell. Note, this tactic only works if you use the spell identification rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Those rules require the use of a Reaction as well as a possible INT\Arcana roll to identify a cast spell. In that case, the seqence of actions would be something like the following.
GM: The mage attempts to casts a spell. <Bard player>, do you counterspell? Player: What spell is she casting? GM: You don't know. Do you want to use your Reaction to identify it? If you do, you can't counterspell it, but someone else in the party might be able to do so.
That is the reason I have a pathological hatred of those rules in XgtE. Not being forward with the spells creates a situation that leads to antagonistic play.
I believe the in idea that players and characters have different sets of knowledge, and that's fine. It's why it's intended that the Player knows if the attack hits their AC and by what margin before deciding if they want to use Shield. Some abilities specify the player gets to know the result of the die roll, but not the final number... although this can get silly because it becomes a thing you can suss out.
If you start using those rules it incentives the players to NEVER declare their spell until after giving a counterspell chance. This will slow down play. Because it turns it into a betting phase during poker.
I agree, though not completely. I don't use spellcasters as enemies a lot, but whenever I do it depends on the situation if a player can identify which spell is being cast. If they have it available to them, they know it (ie if they have it prepared/spells known depending on class). If it's from another class, they might need to roll an Arcana check, DC 13+spell level, and if it's from their own class the DC is 10+spell level. I don't take away their reaction though, or perhaps better; as part of their Reaction. Only those party members that are able to interfere may make the roll and then decide if they act. This way can it still holds an air of mystery but doesn't completely slow down play.I do confess that our pacing is rather slow already, so there's that XD.
There may be nothing wrong with it from a counterspell rules standpoint, but you are still casting two spells on your turn (and it is definitely still on your turn) so the rules for casting multiple spells still apply.
There may be nothing wrong with it from a counterspell rules standpoint, but you are still casting two spells on your turn (and it is definitely still on your turn) so the rules for casting multiple spells still apply.
There are no rules in a general sense restricting the casting of multiple spells on your turn. The only time it is restricted is if you cast a spell as a bonus action on your turn then any other spell you cast on your turn must be no higher than a cantrip. There is nothing stopping you casting a levelled spell as an action and another as a reaction.
I learned something today. So fireball + counterspell is ok, but quickened fireball + counterspell is not ok.
Its also handy to know I can jump off a cliff, cast feather fall on myself, and blast someone on the way down with any spell that uses an action to cast—all on my turn.
I always assumed the rule was in place to put tight controls on the ability to cast two spells in a round, but it appears the rule was designed to apply to bonus action spells in particular.
I always assumed the rule was in place to put tight controls on the ability to cast two spells in a round, but it appears the rule was designed to apply to bonus action spells in particular.
This is correct. The rule is solely under the heading for Casting Time: Bonus Action, so actually solely applies to that. I think the rule was keenly made with Quickened metamagic [and similar effects] in mind.
I always assumed the rule was in place to put tight controls on the ability to cast two spells in a round, but it appears the rule was designed to apply to bonus action spells in particular.
This is correct. The rule is solely under the heading for Casting Time: Bonus Action, so actually solely applies to that. I think the rule was keenly made with Quickened metamagic [and similar effects] in mind.
Honestly, I think it was just so you couldn't cast healing word and cure wounds in the same turn, and they way it effected metamagic and reactions kept the game balanced, so they left it.
That is the reason I have a pathological hatred of those rules in XgtE. Not being forward with the spells creates a situation that leads to antagonistic play.
That has nothing to do with XGtE. There's never been a rule that says you know what spell is being cast by enemies. The introduction of an optional rule for recognizing what's being cast doesn't change that.
The trade-off for having a one-size-fits-all solution for stopping enemy spells is having to gamble on what you're stopping.
There's also never been a rule that you couldn't. It's not unreasonable to want a RAW option to recognize the significance of verbal/somatic/material components an enemy is using before deciding whether it's time to cast Counterspell. Locking that attempt behind an arcana check already introduces some uncertainty into the equation (instead of saying "you fail," DM might actively mislead you on a poor roll about what spell is being cast), I don't see the gameplay benefit of requiring Counterspell to always be a shot in the dark made with zero information.
So in this scenario, a bard is casting bigsby's hand onto another mage. The mage attempts to cast counterspell, and the bard casts counterspell on the mage. The mage then tries to dispel magic the hand but is just repeatedly counterspelled by the bard. Is there any counter? Is the mage just unable to do anything in this situation?
How did the bard cast counterspell whilst casting Bigby's hand? The bard has used an action to cast a spell. It's still their turn, so even if they have a reaction, they can't cast counterspell to counter the counterspell because they're still casting the current spell. It doesn't work.
Wrong. From Sage Advice:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Thanks. I still think that shouldn't make sense, but I know how much my opinion is worth here.
Edit: In terms of answering the original question: use higher spell slots. Either the bard will be forced to make a save, or forced to blow spell slots.
so if the counterspell is used at a higher level, will it just void the bard counterspell and go straight for bigby's hand? If he wins the contest against the counterspell, can he keep going with that counterspell to counter the bigby's hand.
There's an order of operations. The most recent counterspell happens first and you work backward - so if person A casts a spell, person B casts Counterspell, person A casts Counterspell, and person C casts Counterspell, then the Counterspell from person C is resolved first - if it succeeds, then person A's Counterspell is nullified, which allows B's Counterspell to resolve against the original spell from person A.
This is all straightforward if you play Magic: The Gathering, but doesn't come up much in D&D so it's totally reasonable to be confused by it all.
And yes, you can take reactions on your own turn (if you have a legal use for one) and can cast as many spells as you have actions for, other than the specific rule that you cannot cast any other spell (other than a 1-action cantrip) on the same turn as a bonus action spell.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Just keep in mind you only get one reaction per turn.
Professional computer geek
That doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. If you are interrupting someone who is interrupting your spell, then by definition you are also interrupting your own spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The sequence would be, on Bard's turn: Bard (Action) casts Bigby's Hand, Mage (Reaction) casts Counterspell, Bard (Reaction) casts Counterspell - Bigby's Hand takes effect. Then on Mage's turn: Mage (Action) casts Dispel Magic - the Hand is dispelled. The Bard cannot retaliate at that time because they have already used their reaction until the beginning of their next turn. There is no endless string of counters because reactions are finite.
This situation also assumes that all the counters and dispels were successful. If any failed then things would be different, but with the same restriction on reactions.
The reason why you can counterspell a counterspell is because you have two hands, you only use one for a spell, it only uses a somatic component making it easy to work in, does not require concentration, and there are no rules disallowing it. The only tme you cannot is if you used your bonus action for a spell because you can then no longer use any levelled spells for the rest of your turn (yes, it includes reactions you take on your turn, because its still on your turn). Otherwise you are free to use reactions as normal and it is a reaction spell.
The intention is so the DM can throw a big bad enemy spellcaster at you and not have your mage just counterspell everything they do while the sword swingers of your group hack away. Likewise it means the DM cannot have a mage in the enemy group locking your mage into the "useless" corner by a series of counterspells. Or at least not without DM fiat shenanigans, anyway.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
First, make sure you are checking the action economy. Counterspell requires a Reaction. You only get one Reaction from the start of your turn to the start of your next turn.
Options for the mage:
She can cast dispel magic using a higher slot. If she counterspells with a level 5 slot and the bard attempts to counterspell using a level 3 slot then the bard must make a DC 15 CHA check. Failure means the counterspell is ineffective.
Depending on which hand the bard chose, she can move to more than 60 feet from the bard and cast dispel magic (120 ft range) from there.
She can cast something else. Magic missile at the bard to trigger lots of concentration checks. Misty step to get away from the bigby's hand. Silence on the bard.
She can cast a lot of cantrips, forcing the bard to use up slots on counterspell. Note, this tactic only works if you use the spell identification rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Those rules require the use of a Reaction as well as a possible INT\Arcana roll to identify a cast spell. In that case, the seqence of actions would be something like the following.
GM: The mage attempts to casts a spell. <Bard player>, do you counterspell?
Player: What spell is she casting?
GM: You don't know. Do you want to use your Reaction to identify it? If you do, you can't counterspell it, but someone else in the party might be able to do so.
Her minions can pepper the bard with arrows, triggering lots of concentration checks. What, she doesn't have minions? Sheesh, she deserves to get pasted. All mages have minions. even if they call them "fellow party members". :-)
She can drink a potion. I suggest a potion of gaseous form.Giant size and growth would also be useful.
That is the reason I have a pathological hatred of those rules in XgtE.
Not being forward with the spells creates a situation that leads to antagonistic play.
I believe the in idea that players and characters have different sets of knowledge, and that's fine. It's why it's intended that the Player knows if the attack hits their AC and by what margin before deciding if they want to use Shield. Some abilities specify the player gets to know the result of the die roll, but not the final number... although this can get silly because it becomes a thing you can suss out.
If you start using those rules it incentives the players to NEVER declare their spell until after giving a counterspell chance. This will slow down play.
Because it turns it into a betting phase during poker.
I agree, though not completely. I don't use spellcasters as enemies a lot, but whenever I do it depends on the situation if a player can identify which spell is being cast. If they have it available to them, they know it (ie if they have it prepared/spells known depending on class). If it's from another class, they might need to roll an Arcana check, DC 13+spell level, and if it's from their own class the DC is 10+spell level. I don't take away their reaction though, or perhaps better; as part of their Reaction. Only those party members that are able to interfere may make the roll and then decide if they act. This way can it still holds an air of mystery but doesn't completely slow down play.I do confess that our pacing is rather slow already, so there's that XD.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
There may be nothing wrong with it from a counterspell rules standpoint, but you are still casting two spells on your turn (and it is definitely still on your turn) so the rules for casting multiple spells still apply.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There are no rules in a general sense restricting the casting of multiple spells on your turn. The only time it is restricted is if you cast a spell as a bonus action on your turn then any other spell you cast on your turn must be no higher than a cantrip. There is nothing stopping you casting a levelled spell as an action and another as a reaction.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
I learned something today. So fireball + counterspell is ok, but quickened fireball + counterspell is not ok.
Its also handy to know I can jump off a cliff, cast feather fall on myself, and blast someone on the way down with any spell that uses an action to cast—all on my turn.
I always assumed the rule was in place to put tight controls on the ability to cast two spells in a round, but it appears the rule was designed to apply to bonus action spells in particular.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is correct. The rule is solely under the heading for Casting Time: Bonus Action, so actually solely applies to that. I think the rule was keenly made with Quickened metamagic [and similar effects] in mind.
Honestly, I think it was just so you couldn't cast healing word and cure wounds in the same turn, and they way it effected metamagic and reactions kept the game balanced, so they left it.
That has nothing to do with XGtE. There's never been a rule that says you know what spell is being cast by enemies. The introduction of an optional rule for recognizing what's being cast doesn't change that.
The trade-off for having a one-size-fits-all solution for stopping enemy spells is having to gamble on what you're stopping.
There's also never been a rule that you couldn't. It's not unreasonable to want a RAW option to recognize the significance of verbal/somatic/material components an enemy is using before deciding whether it's time to cast Counterspell. Locking that attempt behind an arcana check already introduces some uncertainty into the equation (instead of saying "you fail," DM might actively mislead you on a poor roll about what spell is being cast), I don't see the gameplay benefit of requiring Counterspell to always be a shot in the dark made with zero information.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.