I've come into a scenario where a Player attempted to counterspell the arcane burst from the 2024 version of Mage. In that moment I ruled that it isn't technically a spell (not on any spell list, no V, S, or M components to state for that matter that would signal a spell being cast, 3 attacks in the 1 action thus not a spell slot but perhaps akin to a cantrip just like eldritch blast) rather this is like an "inherent ability" and clearly not in the spell list. Player argued about the "magic action" and that the counterspell should work and block all 3 attacks and of course it's a spell because it's practically in the name and works like one (ranged or melee/ force damage).
I stuck with my ruling as to not set a precedent moving forward but the player was furious. While I try to remind the said player that I set the rules as DM, this is a new territory to navigate when WOTC changed the stat here. It helps to reinforce MY rulings when things are iron clad in description, so I am curious as to what others think of this.
While for my table I would rule yes, RAW, no, it’s just a ranged attack that deals Force damage, nothing in it states that it is a spell, for all intents and purposes even anti magic doesn’t work against it.
But RAI, it’s probably intended to be a generic magic attack for the spellcaster monster, so you could just rule that it is magical but not a spell in of itself.
As written, it's not a spell, but yes, the DM could decide it counts as one. Since you didn't, I'd tell the players that it's not a spell according to the rules, so they don't waste the spell slot and reaction countering it, similarly to how Mercer also shuts down attempts to counterspell things which aren't spells.
No, it's of no use trying that. Keep your reaction and spell slot unspent.
When a Mage takes an action to use Arcane Burst, Counterspell's trigger is never met, you never see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components so the spell can't be cast as a Reaction.
Now if you want a sanity check on how other GMs would have ruled the same situation, I personally think it's best to go with the specific description of a spell. If you start getting into the idea that because a spell slot was used, counterspell could be used then you get into a slippery slope of asking about Sorcerer's conversion of spell slots to sorcery points and suchlike. If there's no Verbal, Somatic, or material components used, then there's nothing to react to and thus no visible sign that counterspell could be used.
Ever since people got mad at the Mordenkainen book for "nerfing counterspell" I wondered what the issue was, because I think if it's magic and a mage is throwing it at you, it is a spell and should be able to be counterspelled.
You wouldn't counterspell an inborn ability like a dragonborn's breath weapon, but it's not like a mage is born with Arcane Burst.
A Spell is defined in the Rules Glossary and Monster Action that makes ranged attack lacks all the characteristics such as level, casting time, component, duration etc;
Spell: A spell is a magical effect that has the characteristics described in “Spells”.
A Spell is defined in the Rules Glossary and Monster Action that makes ranged attack lacks all the characteristics such as level, casting time, component, duration etc;
Spell: A spell is a magical effect that has the characteristics described in “Spells”.
But the only RAI for replacing spells with generic magic attacks on monster stat blocks was just that DM's didn't have to read the spell description for every spell their npc might cast, which could often bog down combat.
The problem they were meant to solve is not "players are counterspelling npc's too much", so I don't see why solving the first problem should effect counterspell.
Consider the action it takes to use the arcane burst to be the casting time, consider it a first level spell (a basic attack won't be that much higher than that), the duration is instantaneous because it's an attack, and the npc is holding a staff that you can consider their focus.
I just don't think there's much point in a distinction between a magical attack used by a humanoid npc (so again, not like a dragon's breath) and a spell. Unless the argument is somehow that something called Arcane Burst isn't magic, then counterspell should work on it.
Creating a burst of arcane energy, you make a melee or ranged spell attack against a target within range. On a hit, the target takes 3d8 + 3 Force damage.
It reminds me of Druid Circle of the Stars Starry Form: Archer feature, neither which is a spell.
Archer. A constellation of an archer appears on you. When you activate this form and as a Bonus Action on your subsequent turns while it lasts, you can make a ranged spell attack, hurling a luminous arrow that targets one creature within 60 feet of yourself. On a hit, the attack deals Radiant damage equal to 1d8 plus your Wisdom modifier.
It reminds me of Druid Circle of the Stars Starry Form: Archer feature, neither which is a spell.
Archer. A constellation of an archer appears on you. When you activate this form and as a Bonus Action on your subsequent turns while it lasts, you can make a ranged spell attack, hurling a luminous arrow that targets one creature within 60 feet of yourself. On a hit, the attack deals Radiant damage equal to 1d8 plus your Wisdom modifier.
But the NPC is a Mage, not a Druid. Why is it so outlandish to call something a mage does a spell? It would be better for both the intended use case and for player experience if you just treated it as a spell.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It reminds me of Druid Circle of the Stars Starry Form: Archer feature, neither which is a spell.
Archer. A constellation of an archer appears on you. When you activate this form and as a Bonus Action on your subsequent turns while it lasts, you can make a ranged spell attack, hurling a luminous arrow that targets one creature within 60 feet of yourself. On a hit, the attack deals Radiant damage equal to 1d8 plus your Wisdom modifier.
But the NPC is a Mage, not a Druid. Why is it so outlandish to call something a mage does a spell? It would be better for both the intended use case and for player experience if you just treated it as a spell.
I know it's a Mage and can do spell, it was just to show the similarities between these two attacks that don't involve spellcasting.
From rules perspective, Arcane Bust is nothing more than an Action that the NPC use to attack.
But a DM ruling that it also count a spell cast wouldn't be outlandish to me.
A Spell is defined in the Rules Glossary and Monster Action that makes ranged attack lacks all the characteristics such as level, casting time, component, duration etc;
Spell: A spell is a magical effect that has the characteristics described in “Spells”.
But the only RAI for replacing spells with generic magic attacks on monster stat blocks was just that DM's didn't have to read the spell description for every spell their npc might cast, which could often bog down combat.
The problem they were meant to solve is not "players are counterspelling npc's too much", so I don't see why solving the first problem should effect counterspell.
I believe it was their intent to do both, make it so DMs didn't have to look up so many spells AND to keep PCs from shutting down monsters by Counterspelling all of their attacks.
But back to the topic at hand, Counterspell only works against spells. Abilities like the one mentioned is not a spell. Just like the changes to Dispel Magic, which also only affects actual spells. If it is not a spell, as defined in the game, Counterspell and Dispel Magic do not work on it.
Stat blocks clearly list what abilities are 'spells' and which are not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
See how the Dungeon Master Guide address this subject specifically;
Monsters Casting Spells
It's important that players can tell when their characters' opponents are casting spells, giving the characters the opportunity to cast Counterspell' or otherwise interfere with the spellcasting.
When a monster casts a spell, check the components it's using and describe its activity appropriately. If the spell has Verbal components, the monster might chant, boldly proclaim, or hiss the mystic syllables of the spell. Somatic components involve the monster moving its hands (or similar appendages) in graceful patterns, shaping them into angular positions, or thrusting them sharply forward. Finally, the monster might be holding a Spellcasting Focus or some other Material component.
Some monsters have the special ability to ignore some or all of a spell's normal components, which might prevent characters from recognizing what the monster is doing. Similarly, when monsters use magical abilities that don't involve casting spells, make sure it's clear to the players that the monster is drawing on its unique magical abilities, not casting a spell their characters could counter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've come into a scenario where a Player attempted to counterspell the arcane burst from the 2024 version of Mage. In that moment I ruled that it isn't technically a spell (not on any spell list, no V, S, or M components to state for that matter that would signal a spell being cast, 3 attacks in the 1 action thus not a spell slot but perhaps akin to a cantrip just like eldritch blast) rather this is like an "inherent ability" and clearly not in the spell list. Player argued about the "magic action" and that the counterspell should work and block all 3 attacks and of course it's a spell because it's practically in the name and works like one (ranged or melee/ force damage).
I stuck with my ruling as to not set a precedent moving forward but the player was furious. While I try to remind the said player that I set the rules as DM, this is a new territory to navigate when WOTC changed the stat here. It helps to reinforce MY rulings when things are iron clad in description, so I am curious as to what others think of this.
While for my table I would rule yes, RAW, no, it’s just a ranged attack that deals Force damage, nothing in it states that it is a spell, for all intents and purposes even anti magic doesn’t work against it.
But RAI, it’s probably intended to be a generic magic attack for the spellcaster monster, so you could just rule that it is magical but not a spell in of itself.
As written it's not a spell, though a DM could reasonably decide otherwise.
As written, it's not a spell, but yes, the DM could decide it counts as one. Since you didn't, I'd tell the players that it's not a spell according to the rules, so they don't waste the spell slot and reaction countering it, similarly to how Mercer also shuts down attempts to counterspell things which aren't spells.
No, it's of no use trying that. Keep your reaction and spell slot unspent.
When a Mage takes an action to use Arcane Burst, Counterspell's trigger is never met, you never see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components so the spell can't be cast as a Reaction.
Your table as a GM, your ruling.
That is the end of the story.
Now if you want a sanity check on how other GMs would have ruled the same situation, I personally think it's best to go with the specific description of a spell. If you start getting into the idea that because a spell slot was used, counterspell could be used then you get into a slippery slope of asking about Sorcerer's conversion of spell slots to sorcery points and suchlike. If there's no Verbal, Somatic, or material components used, then there's nothing to react to and thus no visible sign that counterspell could be used.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Ever since people got mad at the Mordenkainen book for "nerfing counterspell" I wondered what the issue was, because I think if it's magic and a mage is throwing it at you, it is a spell and should be able to be counterspelled.
You wouldn't counterspell an inborn ability like a dragonborn's breath weapon, but it's not like a mage is born with Arcane Burst.
A Spell is defined in the Rules Glossary and Monster Action that makes ranged attack lacks all the characteristics such as level, casting time, component, duration etc;
But the only RAI for replacing spells with generic magic attacks on monster stat blocks was just that DM's didn't have to read the spell description for every spell their npc might cast, which could often bog down combat.
The problem they were meant to solve is not "players are counterspelling npc's too much", so I don't see why solving the first problem should effect counterspell.
Consider the action it takes to use the arcane burst to be the casting time, consider it a first level spell (a basic attack won't be that much higher than that), the duration is instantaneous because it's an attack, and the npc is holding a staff that you can consider their focus.
I just don't think there's much point in a distinction between a magical attack used by a humanoid npc (so again, not like a dragon's breath) and a spell. Unless the argument is somehow that something called Arcane Burst isn't magic, then counterspell should work on it.
If it was a spell
It reminds me of Druid Circle of the Stars Starry Form: Archer feature, neither which is a spell.
But the NPC is a Mage, not a Druid. Why is it so outlandish to call something a mage does a spell? It would be better for both the intended use case and for player experience if you just treated it as a spell.
The mage has a list of spells they can cast. Arcane Burst isn't on it
Save the counterspell for when they bust out cone of cold
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I know it's a Mage and can do spell, it was just to show the similarities between these two attacks that don't involve spellcasting.
From rules perspective, Arcane Bust is nothing more than an Action that the NPC use to attack.
But a DM ruling that it also count a spell cast wouldn't be outlandish to me.
I believe it was their intent to do both, make it so DMs didn't have to look up so many spells AND to keep PCs from shutting down monsters by Counterspelling all of their attacks.
But back to the topic at hand, Counterspell only works against spells. Abilities like the one mentioned is not a spell. Just like the changes to Dispel Magic, which also only affects actual spells. If it is not a spell, as defined in the game, Counterspell and Dispel Magic do not work on it.
Stat blocks clearly list what abilities are 'spells' and which are not.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
See how the Dungeon Master Guide address this subject specifically;