My problem with this, is that to use Counterspell you need to see the spell be cast, but activating an item doesn't show a spell being cast, does it? so how could I possible know if it is a spell being cast og an activation of an item like boots of speed?
So obviously the key word here is not so much "see" the actual casting of the spell but you must see the creature and percieve it casting a spell. So the rule should proably say something in the line of: * - which you take when you percieve a visible creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Invisible creature with verbal component only? No counterspell for you Visible creature without any component? No counterspell for you Visible creature with verbal component only? Counterspell a go Visible creature with material component only? Counterspell a go (you must hold the material, might be hidden with a Sleight of Hand or Stealth check with DM consent) Visible creature with somatic component only? Counterspell a go
Magic items remove the use of all components (unless specified otherwise), so yeah things are contradicting each other when Wands come into play, since those do not require components either (like wand of fireballs). It's a bit strange if you ask me.
I agree with your assessment of the tweets. Items get rid of all spell components, so the tweet contradicts the "can see casting" <=> "must have components" interpretation of Counterspell. This would also mean that you can counterspell a subtle spell, though, wouldn't it? And it would indicate that the "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell " line in Counterspell would be better written as "which you take when a creature in your line of sight and within 60 feet of you is casting a spell".
This makes Subtle Spell kind of weak. The other way of ruling would make Counterspell very weak since many monsters abilities wouldn't qualify.
Hmm, this is a bit of a quandary. Perhaps here's a way to think about it: the DMG suggests that spells from a magic item "require no components", but in fact there is an obvious component involved - the item itself. You must wave the wand, read the scroll, raise the staff, touch the gemstone, whatever. That, to me, is classic Material/Somatic component type activity. Some items also require a command word (verbal component) or other noticeable trigger. This has all already gone beyond RAW, but maybe a sensible blanket ruling would be that any spell from a magic item you are holding in your hands can be countered by default (unless the description of the item suggests motionless silent casting), but any spell from a magic item you are wearing (e.g a helmet) cannot be countered unless the item description mentions a verbal or manual activation method / component.
That ruling should cover almost all common spellcasting items, and makes a certain pseudo-logical sense, while still allowing Subtle Spell to be useful.
When the person you're are watching turns invisible the casting of the spell has finished and Counterspell can not be used anymore:
I disagree. This is a function of the way a tabletop game is played. It's not like I have to interrupt the person before he finishes saying the words "I cast invisibility," by blurting out "COUNTERSPELL!" It's a reaction. By definition it comes after the fact.
However, you also said that it can lead to potentially contradictory interpretations so in the end we have to go with what we like best. I think that sums it up nicely.
I just wanted to pose a set of questions here for you to ponder.
If a magic item is required to cast a spell, is it not then a material component? You can’t cast the spell without physically possessing the particular object if it is the object that is enabling the spell to be cast, correct?
That is why you can counter a wand, and why most Magic Item’s don’t require other components, because they already represent such a component. When they do require multiple components, it’s usually to balance the power of the spell.
With that in mind, my ruling at the table would be, if it requires the magic item as a material component, and you are within range, you can counter the spell. This is how we currently rule in Adventure’s League.
However, you rule however you would like at your table.
For reference, see the pertinent portion of “Material Componenet” below:
Components
Aspell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
I probably was a bit unclear with my comment, my apologies. What I basically meant was that if a wand is susceptible to counterspell (which it is) then there is no reason why it would not work on the helmet since both don't need any components (verbal, somatic or material), whether the spell cast does or not.
I agree with your assessment of the tweets. Items get rid of all spell components, so the tweet contradicts the "can see casting" <=> "must have components" interpretation of Counterspell.
Not all items get rid of all spell components (e.g. spell scrolls don't.) Jeremy was asked a general question about counterspelling a spell cast from a magic item and he responded by saying that counterspell doesn't care what the source of the spell is. The question wasn't about spell components and didn't specify any one particular wand. If he had been asked "If a spell cast through a magic item doesn't require components, can it be counterspelled?" the answer to that question would be relevant.
If you were there and suddenly you weren't, then I just saw you cast a spell.
If the spell already went off, it's too late to counterspell. The spell happened. Counterspell says you interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.
If you were there and suddenly you weren't, then I just saw you cast a spell.
If the spell already went off, it's too late to counterspell. The spell happened. Counterspell says you interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.
Yep. The spell is cast. As a reaction I cast counterspell. That’s what I’ve been saying.
"The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell." P 254 of PHB. It does not say it ends after a spell is cast. As casting a spell reveals you, the spell can be countered, at least RAW. It has nothing to do with concentration, just the spell effect. Same as if you swing at someone and miss, it reveals you. Only way to not be countered then is to have greater invis or be using subtle spell or be a lvl 20 Druid.
A good way to see why this is true it to look at the difference between greater invis and regular invis. With greater, you get advantage on attacks. If what you are claiming were true, it would state that you have advantage on the attack or cast that reveals you, which it does not.
"The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell." P 254 of PHB. It does not say it ends after a spell is cast. As casting a spell reveals you, the spell can be countered, at least RAW.
If you cast a spell, Invisibility ends. Therefore, Invisibility doesn't end if you haven't cast a spell yet. If rocks fall on you mid-casting and you die, you didn't cast a spell. You certainly tried to, but it didn't happen.
The reason I say I think people are overthinking this is because I feel like some are drawing a distinction where there doesn't need to be one. Any spell that has a casting time of an action, a bonus action, or a reaction is effectively instant, right? This ties back to my point about counterspell. As soon as the player at the table announces they are casting the spell, the spell is cast. Doing something while such a spell is being cast and using a reaction to such a spell after it has been cast (but right away) would seem to be functionally equivalent.
The reason I say I think people are overthinking this is because I feel like some are drawing a distinction where there doesn't need to be one.
It's not overthinking it when the lead designer and managing editor chimes in and explicitly says you can't counterspell a spell you can't perceive.
Any spell that has a casting time of an action, a bonus action, or a reaction is effectively instant, right?
It has to take some time to say the mystic words, flail your arms around and fiddle with your spellcasting focus...unless you don't have to do any of those, but then you can't counterspell the spell anyways so the whole duration issue never comes into play.
This ties back to my point about counterspell. As soon as the player at the table announces they are casting the spell, the spell is cast. Doing something while such a spell is being cast and using a reaction to such a spell after it has been cast (but right away) would seem to be functionally equivalent.
You're conflating the actions you need to take as a player with the order of operations of the game's rules. The fact that you as a player have to declare your counterspell after someone's declared they're casting a spell doesn't imply that's the order things happen in-game.
I'm suggesting that what a character can perceive is not nearly as limited as some of the discussion in this thread seems to imply it is.
Blue wizard casts Teleport, which has only a verbal component and a casting time of one action. Let's say he has his back to red wizard so red wizard cannot see his lips move. Red wizard is watching blue wizard the whole time. Suddenly blue wizard blinks away. Red wizard just watched blue wizard cast a spell. Red wizard immediately casts Counterspell at 7th level.
How can we say that a character, especially someone as perceptive as a wizard, would not perceive that someone he has been watching the entire time did not just cast a spell?
EDIT: And to avoid going off on a Subtle Spell tangent, I'll just point out that it is a tool to specifically mask someone else perceiving the casting of a spell. It's the spellcasting equivalent of stealth. And I'm fine to leave it at that.
There's no facing in D&D so someone talking and saying arcane things would be perceivable. Unless you are using greater invisibility, subtle spell, or are a druid and say you are specifically forgoing using somatic and verbal components of the spell then it can be counterspelled. I can turn my TV on mute and still see they are talking. Again, if you cast a spell you break invisibility, as you cast, not after as RAW. If you would like to not be revealed as you cast, then greater invisibility is the spell for you as you get advantage for that action as you are invisible for the casting whereas with regular invisibility you do not.
The reason I say I think people are overthinking this is because I feel like some are drawing a distinction where there doesn't need to be one. Any spell that has a casting time of an action, a bonus action, or a reaction is effectively instant, right? This ties back to my point about counterspell. As soon as the player at the table announces they are casting the spell, the spell is cast. Doing something while such a spell is being cast and using a reaction to such a spell after it has been cast (but right away) would seem to be functionally equivalent.
They aren't very functionally equivalent. The moment to cast counterspell is at the very start of a spell, before any decisions are revealed by the caster about targets, before any dice are rolled. (In fact you need to cast counterspell before you even know what spell is being cast according to various RAW rules, but everyone playing thinks that is stupid and annoying so ignores it.)
This is the difference between "I cast fireball." - "Counterspell!", and "I cast fireball. Target is here, 4 PCs hit. Rolled 46 for damage, everyone roll Dex saves? 2 failed." - "Counterspell!".
If the fireball is exploding in your face then it's too late to counter, and if the enemy has disappeared and reappeared right next to you then it's too late to counter the teleport too. The follow-up to that is that there are ways to avoid a spell being countered, which all boil down to casting a spell while you can't be seen to be casting it (invisible, hidden, subtle casting, standing in a different room, using psionics, etc.) You can choose to ignore all of that and rule that any spell can be countered at any time, but that's not RAW, nor RAI.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You guys are still overthinking this.
If you were there and suddenly you weren't, then I just saw you cast a spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
My problem with this, is that to use Counterspell you need to see the spell be cast, but activating an item doesn't show a spell being cast, does it? so how could I possible know if it is a spell being cast og an activation of an item like boots of speed?
Rules as written: you need to see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
It does not mention the spell visibly cast, you must see the creature and it must be casting a spell.
Subtle Spell removes Verbal and/or Somatic components, but you can still see the creature. RAW; counterspell works
HOWEVER: this contradicts this statement
So obviously the key word here is not so much "see" the actual casting of the spell but you must see the creature and percieve it casting a spell. So the rule should proably say something in the line of: * - which you take when you percieve a visible creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Invisible creature with verbal component only? No counterspell for you
Visible creature without any component? No counterspell for you
Visible creature with verbal component only? Counterspell a go
Visible creature with material component only? Counterspell a go (you must hold the material, might be hidden with a Sleight of Hand or Stealth check with DM consent)
Visible creature with somatic component only? Counterspell a go
Magic items remove the use of all components (unless specified otherwise), so yeah things are contradicting each other when Wands come into play, since those do not require components either (like wand of fireballs). It's a bit strange if you ask me.
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
I'm only talking about Counterspell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think we have the two possible interpretations nailed down now:
They lead to different interpretations for certain abilities and they both lead to contradictions with Mr. Crawford. So pick what you like best!
Or you can a bit of mix and matching as suggested by RegentCorreon.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If you are invisible and start casting a spell you reveal yourself and therefore can be counterspelled. Greater invis though, you are fine.
Good morning everyone, Happy SoME weekend!
I just wanted to pose a set of questions here for you to ponder.
If a magic item is required to cast a spell, is it not then a material component? You can’t cast the spell without physically possessing the particular object if it is the object that is enabling the spell to be cast, correct?
That is why you can counter a wand, and why most Magic Item’s don’t require other components, because they already represent such a component. When they do require multiple components, it’s usually to balance the power of the spell.
With that in mind, my ruling at the table would be, if it requires the magic item as a material component, and you are within range, you can counter the spell. This is how we currently rule in Adventure’s League.
However, you rule however you would like at your table.
For reference, see the pertinent portion of “Material Componenet” below:
Components
A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
Page 141 of the DMG says items that cast spells do not require components to cast. So no expensive material components needed.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The reason I say I think people are overthinking this is because I feel like some are drawing a distinction where there doesn't need to be one. Any spell that has a casting time of an action, a bonus action, or a reaction is effectively instant, right? This ties back to my point about counterspell. As soon as the player at the table announces they are casting the spell, the spell is cast. Doing something while such a spell is being cast and using a reaction to such a spell after it has been cast (but right away) would seem to be functionally equivalent.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's not overthinking it when the lead designer and managing editor chimes in and explicitly says you can't counterspell a spell you can't perceive.
It has to take some time to say the mystic words, flail your arms around and fiddle with your spellcasting focus...unless you don't have to do any of those, but then you can't counterspell the spell anyways so the whole duration issue never comes into play.
I'm suggesting that what a character can perceive is not nearly as limited as some of the discussion in this thread seems to imply it is.
Blue wizard casts Teleport, which has only a verbal component and a casting time of one action.
Let's say he has his back to red wizard so red wizard cannot see his lips move.
Red wizard is watching blue wizard the whole time. Suddenly blue wizard blinks away.
Red wizard just watched blue wizard cast a spell. Red wizard immediately casts Counterspell at 7th level.
How can we say that a character, especially someone as perceptive as a wizard, would not perceive that someone he has been watching the entire time did not just cast a spell?
EDIT: And to avoid going off on a Subtle Spell tangent, I'll just point out that it is a tool to specifically mask someone else perceiving the casting of a spell. It's the spellcasting equivalent of stealth. And I'm fine to leave it at that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There's no facing in D&D so someone talking and saying arcane things would be perceivable. Unless you are using greater invisibility, subtle spell, or are a druid and say you are specifically forgoing using somatic and verbal components of the spell then it can be counterspelled. I can turn my TV on mute and still see they are talking. Again, if you cast a spell you break invisibility, as you cast, not after as RAW. If you would like to not be revealed as you cast, then greater invisibility is the spell for you as you get advantage for that action as you are invisible for the casting whereas with regular invisibility you do not.