Not really. I believe RAW says while you might see a caster in the process of casting a spell you would have to use an action to make a Arcana skill check to know what it was.
DM Decision. Assuming you mean something like using Deception to try and make someone think they are casting a spell? As a rule of thumb I would say no. In my games casting spells looks similar to how they are portrayed in movies like Doctor Strange or Dragon Prince so unless you could duplicate the magic sparkles it would be hard to justify fake casting the spell.
If it was the right type of illusion then yes.
I would say no. The word 'attack' does not occur in Counterspell's description nor does 'target'. Both are specified in Mirror Image.
I don’t think it’s RAW or even RAI but the way I run knowing spells to counterspell is if it is logical the person shows what the spell would be then they know. If Jimmy the Wizard has never seen or heard of Hunger of Hadar or something that a wizard generally wouldn’t know, they can make an arcana check to get a vague idea, or even a spell level.
I would add that “doing a deception” is itself an Action, so it’s the action economy disallows disguising spellcasting more than DM discomfort. I’d 100% allow pretending to cast a spell, but pretending to NOT cast a spell and actually casting a spell are both Actions, so you can’t do both.
If you are invisible and casting a spell ends the invisible condition, can someone see you cast the spell?
That's a timing issue; is it starting casting or finishing casting that ends the invisible condition? If you become visible after casting the spell, you were not seen to cast the spell so no, if you become visible when you start casting you were seen so yes. It should be the same answer you use for attacking (if you attack, ending your invisible condition, do you get advantage? If yes, counterspelling should be impossible).
One homebrew rule that I use for bullet point #1, When you use the new reaction described in XGTE to identify a spell, you can also counterspell in the same reaction.
My assumption about counterspell is that snuffs out the spell in the first moment it's Cast. Before the spell truly takes affect but after its effects become obvious.
With the invisibility example, i think the spell is countered as the creature fades away but before the caster is totally invisible.
But honestly I think people worry to much about counterspell. Getting counterspelled is really no different than rolling a 1 on an attack.
By RAW you don't need to know what is being cast, you just have to be able to see the creature casting a spell. You see a spell being cast, declare you want to counterspell and at what level, then you resolve the DC roll if the level of the counterspell is not high enough to automatically counter the spell.
By RAW you don't need to know what is being cast, you just have to be able to see the creature casting a spell. You see a spell being cast, declare you want to counterspell and at what level, then you resolve the DC roll if the level of the counterspell is not high enough to automatically counter the spell.
Right but the OP's question is, can you use a cantrip to bait someone into counterspelling so that they burn their counterspell, and then you cast the REAL spell afterwards, unable to be counterspelled. This is actually really important, since you wouldn't probably want to counterspell "Mage Hand," especially instead of countering, say, Fireball. XGE says to use a reaction for quick spell identification but doing that, would burn the reaction and prevent counterspell, unless one does a homebrew as SniperWes20 describes.
My character's aren't anywhere near 3rd level spells yet but I need to figure out how I'm going to work this in my campaign... I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Disguised Spell- You expend the necessary amount of sorcery points to mask your spell. Any creature that tries to discern what spell or spell level is being cast cannot.
Disguised Spell- You expend the necessary amount of sorcery points to mask your spell. Any creature that tries to discern what spell or spell level is being cast cannot.
Subtle Spell already accomplishes this in many circumstances. There’s too much overlap for it to make an interesting discrete feature, I think.
Right but the OP's question is, can you use a cantrip to bait someone into counterspelling so that they burn their counterspell, and then you cast the REAL spell afterwards, unable to be counterspelled. This is actually really important, since you wouldn't probably want to counterspell "Mage Hand," especially instead of countering, say, Fireball. XGE says to use a reaction for quick spell identification but doing that, would burn the reaction and prevent counterspell, unless one does a homebrew as SniperWes20 describes.
It would burn it even with the homebrew. "I use my reaction to identify and possibly counterspell". "It's mage hand". "I don't bother to counter spell". "Okay, he fireballs and you've already used your reaction".
By RAW you don't need to know what is being cast, you just have to be able to see the creature casting a spell. You see a spell being cast, declare you want to counterspell and at what level, then you resolve the DC roll if the level of the counterspell is not high enough to automatically counter the spell.
Right but the OP's question is, can you use a cantrip to bait someone into counterspelling so that they burn their counterspell, and then you cast the REAL spell afterwards, unable to be counterspelled. This is actually really important, since you wouldn't probably want to counterspell "Mage Hand," especially instead of countering, say, Fireball. XGE says to use a reaction for quick spell identification but doing that, would burn the reaction and prevent counterspell, unless one does a homebrew as SniperWes20 describes.
My character's aren't anywhere near 3rd level spells yet but I need to figure out how I'm going to work this in my campaign... I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. This was just intended to clarify some things as others were talking about needing to ID the spell before you can counterspell it.... which after re-reading the thread, wasn't as much of a problem as I initially thought it was, haha. That one's on me.
It would burn it even with the homebrew. "I use my reaction to identify and possibly counterspell". "It's mage hand". "I don't bother to counter spell". "Okay, he fireballs and you've already used your reaction".
Yes but you still have counterspell for the next round. I mean assuming a limited number of spell slots and thus a limited number of times one can cast counterspell, an enemy would see some value in making you burn your spell slots counterspelling useless cantrips.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The trigger for Counterspell is you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell. Questions:
(this should probably be in rules and game mechanics, but I can't move it now).
Good questions...my understanding below
Hope this helps.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
I don’t think it’s RAW or even RAI but the way I run knowing spells to counterspell is if it is logical the person shows what the spell would be then they know. If Jimmy the Wizard has never seen or heard of Hunger of Hadar or something that a wizard generally wouldn’t know, they can make an arcana check to get a vague idea, or even a spell level.
If you are invisible and casting a spell ends the invisible condition, can someone see you cast the spell?
I don't allow this in my game. If you want to obscure your spell casting, you do it by being a sorcerer and using subtle spell metamagic.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I would add that “doing a deception” is itself an Action, so it’s the action economy disallows disguising spellcasting more than DM discomfort. I’d 100% allow pretending to cast a spell, but pretending to NOT cast a spell and actually casting a spell are both Actions, so you can’t do both.
That's a timing issue; is it starting casting or finishing casting that ends the invisible condition? If you become visible after casting the spell, you were not seen to cast the spell so no, if you become visible when you start casting you were seen so yes. It should be the same answer you use for attacking (if you attack, ending your invisible condition, do you get advantage? If yes, counterspelling should be impossible).
One homebrew rule that I use for bullet point #1, When you use the new reaction described in XGTE to identify a spell, you can also counterspell in the same reaction.
When the DM smiles, it is already to late.
My assumption about counterspell is that snuffs out the spell in the first moment it's Cast. Before the spell truly takes affect but after its effects become obvious.
With the invisibility example, i think the spell is countered as the creature fades away but before the caster is totally invisible.
But honestly I think people worry to much about counterspell. Getting counterspelled is really no different than rolling a 1 on an attack.
By RAW you don't need to know what is being cast, you just have to be able to see the creature casting a spell. You see a spell being cast, declare you want to counterspell and at what level, then you resolve the DC roll if the level of the counterspell is not high enough to automatically counter the spell.
Right but the OP's question is, can you use a cantrip to bait someone into counterspelling so that they burn their counterspell, and then you cast the REAL spell afterwards, unable to be counterspelled. This is actually really important, since you wouldn't probably want to counterspell "Mage Hand," especially instead of countering, say, Fireball. XGE says to use a reaction for quick spell identification but doing that, would burn the reaction and prevent counterspell, unless one does a homebrew as SniperWes20 describes.
My character's aren't anywhere near 3rd level spells yet but I need to figure out how I'm going to work this in my campaign... I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This would make a cool sorcerer metamagic option.
Disguised Spell- You expend the necessary amount of sorcery points to mask your spell. Any creature that tries to discern what spell or spell level is being cast cannot.
Subtle Spell already accomplishes this in many circumstances. There’s too much overlap for it to make an interesting discrete feature, I think.
It would burn it even with the homebrew. "I use my reaction to identify and possibly counterspell". "It's mage hand". "I don't bother to counter spell". "Okay, he fireballs and you've already used your reaction".
Sorry, I should have been more clear. This was just intended to clarify some things as others were talking about needing to ID the spell before you can counterspell it.... which after re-reading the thread, wasn't as much of a problem as I initially thought it was, haha. That one's on me.
Yes but you still have counterspell for the next round. I mean assuming a limited number of spell slots and thus a limited number of times one can cast counterspell, an enemy would see some value in making you burn your spell slots counterspelling useless cantrips.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.