There's no rule to prevent casting two spells at once, counterspell uses a reaction, so it's unlikely that the spell being countered would have used it up already.
But many spells require an S component. What happens when you change your words for one spell and start speaking the words for a different spell?
S component would be a gesture, and it could be argued that the casting of the first spell has already finished. There are a lot of arguments both ways for why you should or shouldn't be able to do it, but there aren't any rules that prevent you from doing it.
Caster A casts a spell using their Action. Caster B casts counterspell using their Reaction. Caster A uses their reaction to counterspell Caster B. The original spell cast by Caster A completes.
Keep in mind that Counterspell is an S only spell. It is also particularly fast because it is cast as a reaction. Nothing in the rules describes what is involved with Somatic components of spells. Counterspell could easily be a small flick of a finger that can work with the Somatic components of any other spell.
The rule on somatic components is the following "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures."
This requires the free use of one hand to perform these gestures. It does NOT say that a hand that has performed a somatic gesture is not free and available for a second somatic component.The rules just aren't that detailed.
In addition, the rule on counterspell states "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." It requires a reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." None of this says whether counterspell is cast AFTER the first spell has been cast but before it takes effect OR just as the spell is begun to be cast but BEFORE somatic components are required.
In order for a DM to decide that counterspell can not be cast while casting another spell they need to rule
1) That a hand being used for the somatic components of one spell is not considered a free hand
2) That counterspell takes place in the middle of spell it is trying to counter during the precise moment when the somatic components of that spell are being used. If counterspell comes before or after the somatic components of the spell it is countering then counterspell could be cast at the counterspell since the caster has a free hand.
The rules don't say ANY of the above so RAW it should work. However, the rules also don't explicitly state the opposite of either of the two points either, it is possible that a hand performing a somatic component might not be able to perform a second somatic component at the same time (it would depend on what the specific somatic components were) and it is also possible that counterspell always interrupts another spell while somatic components are being performed.
Finally, these considerations only apply if a caster wants to use the same hand to do the somatic components of both spells. A caster with both hands empty has no problem casting counterspell at the same time as any other spell because counterspell only requires a somatic component. The caster would also have no problem casting counterspell even with only one hand free if the original spell only had V and M components - thus leaving the hand free anyway.
The bottom line is that in general counterspelling a counterspell while casting a different spell works fine. The only question arises when the caster has only one hand free and is casting a spell with a somatic component in which case the DM gets to rule on how they want it to work.
P.S. One exception, casting a bonus action spell limits any other spells cast by that character on that turn to cantrips requiring an action to cast so a caster who casts a bonus action spell is unable to respond to counterspell because they can not cast a spell requiring a reaction on the turn they cast a bonus action spell.
But many spells require an S component. What happens when you change your words for one spell and start speaking the words for a different spell?
You wouldn't need to change the words because counterspell has no verbal component. If the original spell has a somatic and material component, then the hand performing the somatic component for the original spell might be holding the material component for that spell. If it is, then that same hand would not be free for the somatic-only component of counterspell. It's something to consider.
But many spells require an S component. What happens when you change your words for one spell and start speaking the words for a different spell?
S component would be a gesture, and it could be argued that the casting of the first spell has already finished. There are a lot of arguments both ways for why you should or shouldn't be able to do it, but there aren't any rules that prevent you from doing it.
You cannot argue RAW that the first spell is finishes being cast because Counterspell itself says otherwise.
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."
In the process of casting.
Not "finished casting".
In the process of casting.
Indeed, the trigger for counterspell reaffirns this notion.
"which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
Cast-ing a spell.
Not has cast-ed a spell.
Casting.
Counterspell's timing is explicit. It happen while, concurrent to, the original spell being cast. It and the other spell are simultaneous.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
Your argument is entirely logical, but not what the rules actually say. Nowhere in the rules does it say that your hand is not free while casting a spell or that your spellcasting is still in progress at the point when counterspell would be cast. It is a ruling that could easily go either way depending on your DM, as the rules are not specific either way.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
The word "busy" in this sentence makes the presumption the hand isn't free, so this is a circular statement. My point is that nothing in the rules tells us a hand in the process of somatic casting is busy. Nothing in the rules tells us such a thing makes the hand no longer free. Every rule I can find concerning whether a hand is free for somatic casting refers to holding an object in that same hand. In my example, no object is held.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
Your argument is entirely logical, but not what the rules actually say. Nowhere in the rules does it say that your hand is not free while casting a spell or that your spellcasting is still in progress at the point when counterspell would be cast. It is a ruling that could easily go either way depending on your DM, as the rules are not specific either way.
You're partially right. Nowhere do the rules say that if your hand is busy doing something it means that it isn't free. But similarly it also doesn't even say that holding something makes it not free either.
It doesn't define what it means by free in any way, to be honest. It sorta just requires a more holistic common sense definition of what it is to be free to perform mystic gestures.
Holding a sword? Pretty sure thats not free. Busy making some other gesture? Similarly, also not free.
The game expects a straightforward understanding of what it is to be free to do it. Being busy doing something else obviously precludes it from being free.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
Your argument is entirely logical, but not what the rules actually say. Nowhere in the rules does it say that your hand is not free while casting a spell or that your spellcasting is still in progress at the point when counterspell would be cast. It is a ruling that could easily go either way depending on your DM, as the rules are not specific either way.
You're partially right. Nowhere do the rules say that if your hand is busy doing something it means that it isn't free. But similarly it also doesn't even say that holding something makes it not free either.
It doesn't define what it means by free in any way, to be honest. It sorta just requires a more holistic common sense definition of what it is to be free to perform mystic gestures.
Holding a sword? Pretty sure thats not free. Busy making some other gesture? Similarly, also not free.
The game expects a straightforward understanding of what it is to be free to do it. Being busy doing something else obviously precludes it from being free.
The legalese debate isn't necessary. RAW, there is a sequence of events in which the initial Action spell and the Reaction Counterspell happen at different times, and one doesn't impose limitations on the other. You have a free hand to cast the original spell, that spell is mechanically cast before you counterspell the counterspell, so your hand is free again for the Reaction spell. It's no different than a Bonus Action spell and Action cantrip not interfering with each other.
Original Caster's Action: Casting a spell
Opponent's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the Original Caster's spell is cast.
Original Caster's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the opponent's counterspell is cast.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
This statement is based on things the rules don't say thus (as always) making it a DM call as to what works for their specific game.
Casting a spell may require a somatic component. Correct.
Do the rules state that a somatic component is required for the entire casting time of a spell. No.
Do the rules say that somatic components are continuously making use of a free hand. No.
Do the rules say that a hand being used for a somatic component of a spell is considered to make the hand not free for casting other spells. No.
Do the rules say that a hand being used for somatic components is considered busy for the entire duration of the spellcasting. No.
-----
Could a somatic component only be required to initiate or complete a spell. Yes. Just as easily as the assumption that somatic components are required for the entire duration of casting a spell.
Could the somatic component required for counterspell in particular be designed to be so small that it can work with the somatic components required for any other spell. Yes. Consider that counterspell is designed to be cast while possibly casting other spells as a defensive measure then this assumption is just as valid as the ones you are using to say that casting counterspell requires two free hands if you are casting a spell with somatic components.
----
Finally, we have the sage advice compendium entry:
"Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn?Yousure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Corneliusthe wizard is castingfireballon his turn, and his foe castscounterspellon him. Cornelius hascounterspellprepared,so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’scounter-spellbefore it can stopfireball."
Fireball has a somatic component. Counterspell has a somatic component. This ruling does not say "Cornelius can cast counterspell if he happens to have two hands free." It just says that they can cast counterspell while casting fireball. This would indicate to me, at least, that the intent is that any somatic components required for counterspell can be executed during the casting of another spell that also has somatic components for whatever reason (pick your favorite).
---
The bottom line is that it is a DM call for their game and that RAW does not provide a specific answer. SAC does provide a specific answer that makes no reference to free hand requirements beyond those required to cast fireball in the first place. So, both RAW and RAI support the casting of counterspell during the casting of another spell with somatic components without additional free hand requirements.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
Your argument is entirely logical, but not what the rules actually say. Nowhere in the rules does it say that your hand is not free while casting a spell or that your spellcasting is still in progress at the point when counterspell would be cast. It is a ruling that could easily go either way depending on your DM, as the rules are not specific either way.
You're partially right. Nowhere do the rules say that if your hand is busy doing something it means that it isn't free. But similarly it also doesn't even say that holding something makes it not free either.
It doesn't define what it means by free in any way, to be honest. It sorta just requires a more holistic common sense definition of what it is to be free to perform mystic gestures.
Holding a sword? Pretty sure thats not free. Busy making some other gesture? Similarly, also not free.
The game expects a straightforward understanding of what it is to be free to do it. Being busy doing something else obviously precludes it from being free.
The legalese debate isn't necessary. RAW, there is a sequence of events in which the initial Action spell and the Reaction Counterspell happen at different times, and one doesn't impose limitations on the other. You have a free hand to cast the original spell, that spell is mechanically cast before you counterspell the counterspell, so your hand is free again for the Reaction spell. It's no different than a Bonus Action spell and Action cantrip not interfering with each other.
Original Caster's Action: Casting a spell
Opponent's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the Original Caster's spell is cast.
Original Caster's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the opponent's counterspell is cast.
Your version of the sequence of events is in direct opposition to what the rules say.
Counterspell can only be cast during the casting of the spell it aims to counter. During the casting.
Read the spell. It isn't shy about this fact. counterspell
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
This statement is based on things the rules don't say thus (as always) making it a DM call as to what works for their specific game.
Casting a spell may require a somatic component. Correct.
Do the rules state that a somatic component is required for the entire casting time of a spell. No.
Do the rules say that somatic components are continuously making use of a free hand. No.
Do the rules say that a hand being used for a somatic component of a spell is considered to make the hand not free for casting other spells. No.
Do the rules say that a hand being used for somatic components is considered busy for the entire duration of the spellcasting. No.
-----
Could a somatic component only be required to initiate or complete a spell. Yes. Just as easily as the assumption that somatic components are required for the entire duration of casting a spell.
Could the somatic component required for counterspell in particular be designed to be so small that it can work with the somatic components required for any other spell. Yes. Consider that counterspell is designed to be cast while possibly casting other spells as a defensive measure then this assumption is just as valid as the ones you are using to say that casting counterspell requires two free hands if you are casting a spell with somatic components.
----
Finally, we have the sage advice compendium entry:
"Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn?Yousure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Corneliusthe wizard is castingfireballon his turn, and his foe castscounterspellon him. Cornelius hascounterspellprepared,so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’scounter-spellbefore it can stopfireball."
Fireball has a somatic component. Counterspell has a somatic component. This ruling does not say "Cornelius can cast counterspell if he happens to have two hands free." It just says that they can cast counterspell while casting fireball. This would indicate to me, at least, that the intent is that any somatic components required for counterspell can be executed during the casting of another spell that also has somatic components for whatever reason (pick your favorite).
---
The bottom line is that it is a DM call for their game and that RAW does not provide a specific answer. SAC does provide a specific answer that makes no reference to free hand requirements beyond those required to cast fireball in the first place. So, both RAW and RAI support the casting of counterspell during the casting of another spell with somatic components without additional free hand requirements.
Nope. To all that.
The fact the game doesn't define a definition for a free hand doesn't remove the obligation for a free hand. Sorry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The rules aren't clear on how much time it takes to make (S) gestures when casting a spell. That's completely abstract. "A Free Hand" is merely a hand not holding or grasping something else. You can even use the same hand you use to retrieve spell components, so the rules aren't that picky. You can adapt (S) components to use an Arcane Focus, even if it's something like a Staff or a Wand (which suggests that the gestures for a given spell aren't necessarily that precise, or a Staff would be too unwieldy). Similarly War Casters can use a weapon to weave their S components.
So I see no reason to assume that a "free hand" used for one spell is no longer "free" under the current definitions. I imagine it's like something you might see in a film -- the wizard thrusts his arm into the air, conjuring a ball of flame, preparing to hurl it at his foes, when the enemy points at him and clenches his fist, trying to siphon off the wizard's manipulation of the Weave. Our trusty hero yanks his arm down, clutching the nascent fireball to his chest, shielding it from the interference, and then spins and hurls it at the enemy.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
Your argument is entirely logical, but not what the rules actually say. Nowhere in the rules does it say that your hand is not free while casting a spell or that your spellcasting is still in progress at the point when counterspell would be cast. It is a ruling that could easily go either way depending on your DM, as the rules are not specific either way.
You're partially right. Nowhere do the rules say that if your hand is busy doing something it means that it isn't free. But similarly it also doesn't even say that holding something makes it not free either.
It doesn't define what it means by free in any way, to be honest. It sorta just requires a more holistic common sense definition of what it is to be free to perform mystic gestures.
Holding a sword? Pretty sure thats not free. Busy making some other gesture? Similarly, also not free.
The game expects a straightforward understanding of what it is to be free to do it. Being busy doing something else obviously precludes it from being free.
The legalese debate isn't necessary. RAW, there is a sequence of events in which the initial Action spell and the Reaction Counterspell happen at different times, and one doesn't impose limitations on the other. You have a free hand to cast the original spell, that spell is mechanically cast before you counterspell the counterspell, so your hand is free again for the Reaction spell. It's no different than a Bonus Action spell and Action cantrip not interfering with each other.
Original Caster's Action: Casting a spell
Opponent's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the Original Caster's spell is cast.
Original Caster's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the opponent's counterspell is cast.
Your version of the sequence of events is in direct opposition to what the rules say.
Counterspell can only be cast during the casting of the spell it aims to counter. During the casting.
Read the spell. It isn't shy about this fact. counterspell
"In the process"
Not before. Not after. No. At the SAME time as.
The mechanical sequence of events is what I was describing, and it is accurate to the rules. Mechanically, there is a sequence of events, and the use of the action along with expending the spell slot happen before the Counterspell is cast, and that is what I was referring to when I said the spell had been cast, but before it took effect.
No rules exist in the game that would cause an action and a reaction to interfere with each other. No rule exists that causes a somatic component for one spell to make the hand not count as free for the somatic component of a follow-up spell. People are just so stuck on saying "no" to everything that they're making up rules problems to do so. It's nonsensical, and completely unnecessary.
You make the somatic component for a spell, another character makes their somatic component to counterspell your spell, and because you don't have to hold the somatic component for any specified length of time you can shift your hand to perform the somatic component for your own counterspell. This doesn't introduce any vagueness, nor does it imballance anything, because the character is spending an extra L3+ spell slot to accomplish nothing more than attempting to prevent one means of stopping a different spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I'm confused by what I hear.
If caster A casts a spell, and caster B counters it, would not caster A loose his action at the first counterspell?
Thus, by caster A then casting counterspell on caster B's counterspell, he would have lost his action.
Unless it is possible to cast both spells at the same time.
There's no rule to prevent casting two spells at once, counterspell uses a reaction, so it's unlikely that the spell being countered would have used it up already.
But many spells require an S component. What happens when you change your words for one spell and start speaking the words for a different spell?
S component would be a gesture, and it could be argued that the casting of the first spell has already finished. There are a lot of arguments both ways for why you should or shouldn't be able to do it, but there aren't any rules that prevent you from doing it.
RAW it works fine.
Caster A casts a spell using their Action. Caster B casts counterspell using their Reaction. Caster A uses their reaction to counterspell Caster B. The original spell cast by Caster A completes.
Keep in mind that Counterspell is an S only spell. It is also particularly fast because it is cast as a reaction. Nothing in the rules describes what is involved with Somatic components of spells. Counterspell could easily be a small flick of a finger that can work with the Somatic components of any other spell.
The rule on somatic components is the following "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures."
This requires the free use of one hand to perform these gestures. It does NOT say that a hand that has performed a somatic gesture is not free and available for a second somatic component.The rules just aren't that detailed.
In addition, the rule on counterspell states "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." It requires a reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." None of this says whether counterspell is cast AFTER the first spell has been cast but before it takes effect OR just as the spell is begun to be cast but BEFORE somatic components are required.
In order for a DM to decide that counterspell can not be cast while casting another spell they need to rule
1) That a hand being used for the somatic components of one spell is not considered a free hand
2) That counterspell takes place in the middle of spell it is trying to counter during the precise moment when the somatic components of that spell are being used. If counterspell comes before or after the somatic components of the spell it is countering then counterspell could be cast at the counterspell since the caster has a free hand.
The rules don't say ANY of the above so RAW it should work. However, the rules also don't explicitly state the opposite of either of the two points either, it is possible that a hand performing a somatic component might not be able to perform a second somatic component at the same time (it would depend on what the specific somatic components were) and it is also possible that counterspell always interrupts another spell while somatic components are being performed.
Finally, these considerations only apply if a caster wants to use the same hand to do the somatic components of both spells. A caster with both hands empty has no problem casting counterspell at the same time as any other spell because counterspell only requires a somatic component. The caster would also have no problem casting counterspell even with only one hand free if the original spell only had V and M components - thus leaving the hand free anyway.
The bottom line is that in general counterspelling a counterspell while casting a different spell works fine. The only question arises when the caster has only one hand free and is casting a spell with a somatic component in which case the DM gets to rule on how they want it to work.
P.S. One exception, casting a bonus action spell limits any other spells cast by that character on that turn to cantrips requiring an action to cast so a caster who casts a bonus action spell is unable to respond to counterspell because they can not cast a spell requiring a reaction on the turn they cast a bonus action spell.
You wouldn't need to change the words because counterspell has no verbal component. If the original spell has a somatic and material component, then the hand performing the somatic component for the original spell might be holding the material component for that spell. If it is, then that same hand would not be free for the somatic-only component of counterspell. It's something to consider.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sorry, I got my vsm's mixed up, but I get it now.
A caster Counterspelling a Counterspell against his innitial spell does indeed work, because of the order of events.
A spell is cast, but before it takes effect, it can be counterspelled.
The Counterspell is cast as a reaction, but before it actually ends the other spell, it can be counterspelled.
The first caster can Counterspell the Counterspell, negating it, and this preventing the initial spell from being negated.
You can flavor it as the first caster putting extra oomph into the initial spell to push through the enemy's Counterspell.
You cannot argue RAW that the first spell is finishes being cast because Counterspell itself says otherwise.
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."
In the process of casting.
Not "finished casting".
In the process of casting.
Indeed, the trigger for counterspell reaffirns this notion.
"which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
Cast-ing a spell.
Not has cast-ed a spell.
Casting.
Counterspell's timing is explicit. It happen while, concurrent to, the original spell being cast. It and the other spell are simultaneous.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Your argument is entirely logical, but not what the rules actually say. Nowhere in the rules does it say that your hand is not free while casting a spell or that your spellcasting is still in progress at the point when counterspell would be cast. It is a ruling that could easily go either way depending on your DM, as the rules are not specific either way.
The word "busy" in this sentence makes the presumption the hand isn't free, so this is a circular statement. My point is that nothing in the rules tells us a hand in the process of somatic casting is busy. Nothing in the rules tells us such a thing makes the hand no longer free. Every rule I can find concerning whether a hand is free for somatic casting refers to holding an object in that same hand. In my example, no object is held.
It might matter. Or it might not.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You're partially right. Nowhere do the rules say that if your hand is busy doing something it means that it isn't free. But similarly it also doesn't even say that holding something makes it not free either.
It doesn't define what it means by free in any way, to be honest. It sorta just requires a more holistic common sense definition of what it is to be free to perform mystic gestures.
Holding a sword? Pretty sure thats not free. Busy making some other gesture? Similarly, also not free.
The game expects a straightforward understanding of what it is to be free to do it. Being busy doing something else obviously precludes it from being free.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The legalese debate isn't necessary. RAW, there is a sequence of events in which the initial Action spell and the Reaction Counterspell happen at different times, and one doesn't impose limitations on the other. You have a free hand to cast the original spell, that spell is mechanically cast before you counterspell the counterspell, so your hand is free again for the Reaction spell. It's no different than a Bonus Action spell and Action cantrip not interfering with each other.
Original Caster's Action: Casting a spell
Opponent's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the Original Caster's spell is cast.
Original Caster's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the opponent's counterspell is cast.
This statement is based on things the rules don't say thus (as always) making it a DM call as to what works for their specific game.
Casting a spell may require a somatic component. Correct.
Do the rules state that a somatic component is required for the entire casting time of a spell. No.
Do the rules say that somatic components are continuously making use of a free hand. No.
Do the rules say that a hand being used for a somatic component of a spell is considered to make the hand not free for casting other spells. No.
Do the rules say that a hand being used for somatic components is considered busy for the entire duration of the spellcasting. No.
-----
Could a somatic component only be required to initiate or complete a spell. Yes. Just as easily as the assumption that somatic components are required for the entire duration of casting a spell.
Could the somatic component required for counterspell in particular be designed to be so small that it can work with the somatic components required for any other spell. Yes. Consider that counterspell is designed to be cast while possibly casting other spells as a defensive measure then this assumption is just as valid as the ones you are using to say that casting counterspell requires two free hands if you are casting a spell with somatic components.
----
Finally, we have the sage advice compendium entry:
"Can you also 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 has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counter-spell before it can stop fireball."
Fireball has a somatic component. Counterspell has a somatic component. This ruling does not say "Cornelius can cast counterspell if he happens to have two hands free." It just says that they can cast counterspell while casting fireball. This would indicate to me, at least, that the intent is that any somatic components required for counterspell can be executed during the casting of another spell that also has somatic components for whatever reason (pick your favorite).
---
The bottom line is that it is a DM call for their game and that RAW does not provide a specific answer. SAC does provide a specific answer that makes no reference to free hand requirements beyond those required to cast fireball in the first place. So, both RAW and RAI support the casting of counterspell during the casting of another spell with somatic components without additional free hand requirements.
Your version of the sequence of events is in direct opposition to what the rules say.
Counterspell can only be cast during the casting of the spell it aims to counter. During the casting.
Read the spell. It isn't shy about this fact. counterspell
"In the process"
Not before. Not after. No. At the SAME time as.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Nope. To all that.
The fact the game doesn't define a definition for a free hand doesn't remove the obligation for a free hand. Sorry.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The rules aren't clear on how much time it takes to make (S) gestures when casting a spell. That's completely abstract. "A Free Hand" is merely a hand not holding or grasping something else. You can even use the same hand you use to retrieve spell components, so the rules aren't that picky. You can adapt (S) components to use an Arcane Focus, even if it's something like a Staff or a Wand (which suggests that the gestures for a given spell aren't necessarily that precise, or a Staff would be too unwieldy). Similarly War Casters can use a weapon to weave their S components.
So I see no reason to assume that a "free hand" used for one spell is no longer "free" under the current definitions. I imagine it's like something you might see in a film -- the wizard thrusts his arm into the air, conjuring a ball of flame, preparing to hurl it at his foes, when the enemy points at him and clenches his fist, trying to siphon off the wizard's manipulation of the Weave. Our trusty hero yanks his arm down, clutching the nascent fireball to his chest, shielding it from the interference, and then spins and hurls it at the enemy.
The mechanical sequence of events is what I was describing, and it is accurate to the rules. Mechanically, there is a sequence of events, and the use of the action along with expending the spell slot happen before the Counterspell is cast, and that is what I was referring to when I said the spell had been cast, but before it took effect.
No rules exist in the game that would cause an action and a reaction to interfere with each other. No rule exists that causes a somatic component for one spell to make the hand not count as free for the somatic component of a follow-up spell. People are just so stuck on saying "no" to everything that they're making up rules problems to do so. It's nonsensical, and completely unnecessary.
You make the somatic component for a spell, another character makes their somatic component to counterspell your spell, and because you don't have to hold the somatic component for any specified length of time you can shift your hand to perform the somatic component for your own counterspell. This doesn't introduce any vagueness, nor does it imballance anything, because the character is spending an extra L3+ spell slot to accomplish nothing more than attempting to prevent one means of stopping a different spell.