... 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 rules don't state that Invisibility ends before, during or after casting a spell, so you can't claim that your interpretation is RAW. Greater Invisibility doesn't specifically grant advantage any more or less than normal Invisibility, the advantage is a function of being unseen by your target (whether by hiding, blindness, or whatever). A hidden rogue gets advantage on the first attack they make, but then one result of that attack is that they are revealed and lose their advantage. The same should apply for Invisibility, with advantage granted on the attack, but the Invisibility ends. The same then should apply for a spell; no one can see you during the casting so can't counter, you get advantage on any attack roll, then one result of the casting is that you become visible again.
I would agree if it said "after you attack or cast a spell you become visable." It does not, so you are revealed as you cast and can be counterspelled.
I would agree if it said "after you attack or cast a spell you become visable." It does not, so you are revealed as you cast and can be counterspelled.
On what grounds? What makes "as you cast" a more logical conclusion than afterwards?
Because it doesn't say "after." Does casting a spell reveal you? Yes. are you being revealed by casting and using a verbal and/or somatic component? Yes. Can that be counterspelled? Yes. Does improved invisibility allow you to cast and attack while invisible? Yes. So logically to me that since there is a spell that is specifically there to be used over a shorter time frame and allows those actions (as well as being called improved), it would reason to me that the improved can do more than the regular one. It's definitely a fine line and I could see it being ruled either way, just saying the way I would rule when I DM.
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.
But that fireball situation is not at all congruous with the example I gave. Respectfully, I feel that you just rebutted an argument I did not make.
I also feel that all of the examples you finished with (invisible, hidden, subtle casting, standing in a different room, using psionics, etc.) would not apply to my argument because in each of those cases, the counterspell caster would not see a creature within 60 feet casting a spell. The only exception out of the situations you listed is subtle spell because the counterspell caster could still see the subtle caster. But I've already acknowledged that subtle spell trumps counterspell and I haven't argued otherwise.
... 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.)...
But that fireball situation is not at all congruous with the example I gave. Respectfully, I feel that you just rebutted an argument I did not make.
I also feel that all of the examples you finished with (invisible, hidden, subtle casting, standing in a different room, using psionics, etc.) would not apply to my argument because in each of those cases, the counterspell caster would not see a creature within 60 feet casting a spell. The only exception out of the situations you listed is subtle spell because the counterspell caster could still see the subtle caster. But I've already acknowledged that subtle spell trumps counterspell and I haven't argued otherwise.
The fireball was an example, not a rebuttal. I then tied it back to the situation under discussion by coming back to teleportation, in that once the caster has disappeared and appeared in a new spot (thus revealing the target destination of their spell) it is now too late to counter that teleportation - just as it is to late to counter an exploding fireball. The time to counter is when you see them performing those hand motions and arcane chants (if you can see them), not when they've already disappeared.
You've acknowledged that Subtle Spell trumps counterspell, but you haven't acknowledged why. Nothing in the description of Subtle Spell (or psionics) mentions counterspell, it only mentions reduced need for companents. If you are acknowledging that 'no components = no counterspell' then you arrive at the discussion we are currently having - does the stated lack of components for spells cast from magic items mean that they can't be countered, and if not, why not? (Or you could have some other justification for how Subtle Spell prevents Counterspell, other than the description of that feature.)
Ah, thanks for clarifying your request and sorry if my earlier response did not properly address it. My subtle spell acknowledgement would be in reference to Crawford's tweet, which says you cannot counter a subtle spell because you cannot counter what you cannot perceive. My underlying argument all along is that, barring subtle spell, whose entire purpose is to mask anyone perceiving the caster casting a spell (there's the "why"), if you're looking at someone who is casting a spell, you're perceiving them casting a spell.
As far as psionics, I don't have any experience working with it in-game, so I had to look up some info in UA and I found this, "Psionics and magic are two distinct forces. In general, an effect that alters or affects a spell has no effect on a psionic effect." I'd really rather not go off on a psionics tangent because I don't know very much at all about it and it wasn't my point in the first place.
Most of what I'm saying here has already been said and I fear I'm not adding anything new to this conversation anymore so we might all be better off agreeing to disagree on this one. I'll offer one more elaboration on an earlier comment. I said that I think people are overthinking this. 5e is a simplified and streamlined game system compared to the versions that came before it. When people get caught up in the "why" of things and try to apply deductive reasoning to determine why a thing is the way it is, it's easy to add complexity and, in the process, restrict a thing in a way that may not be spelled out in the rules.
One thing we use at our higher level tables where counterspell is a normal thing, we don't announce what spell we are casting. All the DM or player says to each other is "I am casting a spell" and then the other has to determine if he wants to use counterspell or not. We allow an arcana check at a DC determined by the spell like counterspell to see if they know what the spell is only if the character has used that spell in the past. You could be counterspelling mage hand or meter swarm, who knows! We are all above board players, but if you have some that aren't, you could have them write what they want to cast before they say if they are casting or not so as to not have the fireball strangely turn into firebolt when you say you are counterspelling.
Per your interpretation, but not mine. I can use a mundane analogy too. If you punch me, I will block it. You throw a punch and I block, I don't wait for you to hit me then block it. The way I see it, again my logic here, is that as you are casting a new spell the invisibility fades as you are now using your arcane powers to do something else other than be invisible. As you are casting the spell that takes a majority of the time for your action there would be a window in which someone who can counterspell, would be able to do so. I can also point out that if you use 2 weapon fighting, you can use an action to attack, hit one creature with one attack, run to another to use your bonus action to off hand attack, then hit an additional creature with your extra attack on the attack action. You do not need to use your full action before a bonus there. Both of which, doing homework or bonus actions, have nothing to do with the scenario here. If you don't want to be counterspelled, use greater invisibility, subtle spell, or be a lvl 20 druid. I would not allow you to have such a feature unless it says it has that feature in the spell. Basically, a lvl 2 spell is less powerful than a level 3 spell, and most assuredly its level 4 upgrade.
Per your interpretation, but not mine. I can use a mundane analogy too. If you punch me, I will block it. You throw a punch and I block, I don't wait for you to hit me then block it. The way I see it, again my logic here, is that as you are casting a new spell the invisibility fades as you are now using your arcane powers to do something else other than be invisible.
The rules aren't sentient beings that can see what you're doing. Also, you haven't used any arcane power at all until the casting is complete, the spell's energy is released and the spell slot is expended. Until then, you're just someone waving their hands around and chanting nonsense words.
Per your interpretation, but not mine. I can use a mundane analogy too. If you punch me, I will block it. You throw a punch and I block, I don't wait for you to hit me then block it. The way I see it, again my logic here, is that as you are casting a new spell the invisibility fades as you are now using your arcane powers to do something else other than be invisible.
The rules aren't sentient beings that can see what you're doing. Also, you haven't used any arcane power at all until the casting is complete, the spell's energy is released and the spell slot is expended. Until then, you're just someone waving their hands around and chanting nonsense words.
Completely incorrect.
Counterspell P228: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." It's a process to cast a spell, not a waving arms around and chanting nonsense. If what you are saying is correct, you could not counterspell anyone that is casting a spell longer than an action unless you used it on the last round of them casting. They aren't technically "casting" by your rationale, just waving arms and chanting nonsense so there's nothing to counter. Even then, how would you know when the spell is cast until after it was cast? Flawed logic there. I'll just cast invisibility on myself and cast teleportation circle for an entire minute and not be revealed or counterspelled. Not so much.
Here is my take on this and how I run it in my games. Counterspell does not counter magical items in my games with the exception of scrolls (since they are actual spells being cast in full aka all components). A great majority of magical items that cast spells don't use any components, my interpretation of that and what I take from previous editions, is that spells cast from items (wands, helms, rings etc) are "charged" into the item. In that Idea they are already cast, they are simply waiting to be unleashed. The magic has already been woven, hence there is nothing to counter.
Every DM is likely to look at this differently obviously but I figured I would give my take on it.
Counterspell P228: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." It's a process to cast a spell, not a waving arms around and chanting nonsense. If what you are saying is correct, you could not counterspell anyone that is casting a spell longer than an action unless you used it on the last round of them casting. They aren't technically "casting" by your rationale, just waving arms and chanting nonsense so there's nothing to counter. Even then, how would you know when the spell is cast until after it was cast? Flawed logic there. I'll just cast invisibility on myself and cast teleportation circle for an entire minute and not be revealed or counterspelled. Not so much.
That actually sounds like a fantastic use for Invisibility! Though Teleportation Circle has a verbal component, so its casting isn't silent. Enemies would know where you were, and a knowledgeable one would know what you were doing and could take many steps to prevent you from succeeding. Plus you would need someone else to cast the initial Invisibility, since casting a spell that takes more than an action requires your concentration - which would break your concentration elsewhere.
Just to repeat; Invisibility doesn't say "before casting", doesn't say "during casting", and doesn't say "after casting" - so no one is in a position to argue that anyone else is incorrect here. Personally I think the Invisibility remains until the moment of an attack or spell casting, granting advantage and bypassing counterspell. I've seen nothing that convinces me otherwise.
Just to repeat; Invisibility doesn't say "before casting", doesn't say "during casting", and doesn't say "after casting" - so no one is in a position to argue that anyone else is incorrect here. Personally I think the Invisibility remains until the moment of an attack or spell casting, granting advantage and bypassing counterspell. I've seen nothing that convinces me otherwise.
Absolutely correct there, these are just how we are reading things and how we would rule. Some may go your direction, some may go mine, some may do something completely different. Basically if you could have it make sense at my table and it wouldn't break the encounter, I kinda let ya do whatever you feel you should be able to do. It sucks to see a player make a character around a certain thought process and background and not be able to play as they intended.
I tend to err on the side of power. A second level spell should be more powerful than a first, second more than first, and so on. Greater invis being 2 levels higher should be a lot more powerful than it's second level counterpart. Based on the description of both, it is obvious that one is to be used for utility and the other for combat. Greater invis is so powerful my champion fighter has me cast that on him instead of haste with the advantage on attacks and disadvantage on things to hit him. That's why I rule invis drops on the second level as soon as you begin to cast, which I rule for other things attacking you as well. To me, doing the funky chicken and summoning arcane powers to alter reality just as, if not more than, revealing than tossing a dinner plate at someone.
And yes, you can counterspell someone casting a spell that takes longer than an action.
Counterspell P228: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." It's a process to cast a spell, not a waving arms around and chanting nonsense.
You're conflating being in the middle of doing something with having done something. They're not the same thing. Counterspell refers to the process; Invisibility refers to the end result.
Yes, casting is a process that can be interrupted as listed in the spell. I’m not talking about counterspelling invisibility, just the spell that’s revealing you from invisibility. So if you are invisible and start casting a minute long spell, you are visable (same with a spell that takes shorter time to cast).
Throwing my hat in here for a moment on the counterspell argument, you can counterspell a wand because when i use it, i point the wand at you. Common experience says you know what happens when someone points a wand or a staff at you the same way most people in the modern day know what happens when someone your fighting points a gun at you.
Throwing my hat in here for a moment on the counterspell argument, you can counterspell a wand because when i use it, i point the wand at you. Common experience says you know what happens when someone points a wand or a staff at you the same way most people in the modern day know what happens when someone your fighting points a gun at you.
This makes the most sense to me...with the helm, unless it describes a visual effect when used there would be no way to know when it’s being activated. With a wand or staff there is definite motion to indicate a spell is about to be cast (waving/pointing). That would also be a fun way for a PC to bluff a spell caster into wasting a spell slot by waving the wand but not actually doing anything
Regarding invisibility and the back and forth on it...
I'm not a rules layering nerd, nor do I care for them at my table.
But the word "casts" is past tense. And to me, when I am sober enough to think about such things, that means AFTER.
For precedence, counterspell uses the phrasing "process of casting" and "is casting" to show present tense. If they meant you lose invisibility just because you decided to attack or cast, I believe the wording would have been made so.
But that's just me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...cryptographic randomness!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would agree if it said "after you attack or cast a spell you become visable." It does not, so you are revealed as you cast and can be counterspelled.
Because it doesn't say "after." Does casting a spell reveal you? Yes. are you being revealed by casting and using a verbal and/or somatic component? Yes. Can that be counterspelled? Yes. Does improved invisibility allow you to cast and attack while invisible? Yes. So logically to me that since there is a spell that is specifically there to be used over a shorter time frame and allows those actions (as well as being called improved), it would reason to me that the improved can do more than the regular one. It's definitely a fine line and I could see it being ruled either way, just saying the way I would rule when I DM.
But that fireball situation is not at all congruous with the example I gave. Respectfully, I feel that you just rebutted an argument I did not make.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Ah, thanks for clarifying your request and sorry if my earlier response did not properly address it. My subtle spell acknowledgement would be in reference to Crawford's tweet, which says you cannot counter a subtle spell because you cannot counter what you cannot perceive. My underlying argument all along is that, barring subtle spell, whose entire purpose is to mask anyone perceiving the caster casting a spell (there's the "why"), if you're looking at someone who is casting a spell, you're perceiving them casting a spell.
As far as psionics, I don't have any experience working with it in-game, so I had to look up some info in UA and I found this, "Psionics and magic are two distinct forces. In general, an effect that alters or affects a spell has no effect on a psionic effect." I'd really rather not go off on a psionics tangent because I don't know very much at all about it and it wasn't my point in the first place.
Most of what I'm saying here has already been said and I fear I'm not adding anything new to this conversation anymore so we might all be better off agreeing to disagree on this one. I'll offer one more elaboration on an earlier comment. I said that I think people are overthinking this. 5e is a simplified and streamlined game system compared to the versions that came before it. When people get caught up in the "why" of things and try to apply deductive reasoning to determine why a thing is the way it is, it's easy to add complexity and, in the process, restrict a thing in a way that may not be spelled out in the rules.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
One thing we use at our higher level tables where counterspell is a normal thing, we don't announce what spell we are casting. All the DM or player says to each other is "I am casting a spell" and then the other has to determine if he wants to use counterspell or not. We allow an arcana check at a DC determined by the spell like counterspell to see if they know what the spell is only if the character has used that spell in the past. You could be counterspelling mage hand or meter swarm, who knows! We are all above board players, but if you have some that aren't, you could have them write what they want to cast before they say if they are casting or not so as to not have the fireball strangely turn into firebolt when you say you are counterspelling.
It also doesn't say "during", so there's no a priori reason to prefer your interpretation.
The rules are written in every day English. If I say "if you do your homework, I'll buy you a pizza", it's understood that I won't order a pizza until you do all your homework. If I say "if you don't do your homework, you're grounded" it's also understood that I expect you to do all of it. Likewise, if you need to take the Attack action to make use of a certain bonus action, you don't meet the requirements for the bonus action until after you do the action. The whole action.
Per your interpretation, but not mine. I can use a mundane analogy too. If you punch me, I will block it. You throw a punch and I block, I don't wait for you to hit me then block it. The way I see it, again my logic here, is that as you are casting a new spell the invisibility fades as you are now using your arcane powers to do something else other than be invisible. As you are casting the spell that takes a majority of the time for your action there would be a window in which someone who can counterspell, would be able to do so. I can also point out that if you use 2 weapon fighting, you can use an action to attack, hit one creature with one attack, run to another to use your bonus action to off hand attack, then hit an additional creature with your extra attack on the attack action. You do not need to use your full action before a bonus there. Both of which, doing homework or bonus actions, have nothing to do with the scenario here. If you don't want to be counterspelled, use greater invisibility, subtle spell, or be a lvl 20 druid. I would not allow you to have such a feature unless it says it has that feature in the spell. Basically, a lvl 2 spell is less powerful than a level 3 spell, and most assuredly its level 4 upgrade.
Here is my take on this and how I run it in my games. Counterspell does not counter magical items in my games with the exception of scrolls (since they are actual spells being cast in full aka all components). A great majority of magical items that cast spells don't use any components, my interpretation of that and what I take from previous editions, is that spells cast from items (wands, helms, rings etc) are "charged" into the item. In that Idea they are already cast, they are simply waiting to be unleashed. The magic has already been woven, hence there is nothing to counter.
Every DM is likely to look at this differently obviously but I figured I would give my take on it.
You're conflating being in the middle of doing something with having done something. They're not the same thing. Counterspell refers to the process; Invisibility refers to the end result.
Yes, casting is a process that can be interrupted as listed in the spell. I’m not talking about counterspelling invisibility, just the spell that’s revealing you from invisibility. So if you are invisible and start casting a minute long spell, you are visable (same with a spell that takes shorter time to cast).
Throwing my hat in here for a moment on the counterspell argument, you can counterspell a wand because when i use it, i point the wand at you. Common experience says you know what happens when someone points a wand or a staff at you the same way most people in the modern day know what happens when someone your fighting points a gun at you.
This makes the most sense to me...with the helm, unless it describes a visual effect when used there would be no way to know when it’s being activated. With a wand or staff there is definite motion to indicate a spell is about to be cast (waving/pointing). That would also be a fun way for a PC to bluff a spell caster into wasting a spell slot by waving the wand but not actually doing anything
Regarding invisibility and the back and forth on it...
I'm not a rules layering nerd, nor do I care for them at my table.
But the word "casts" is past tense. And to me, when I am sober enough to think about such things, that means AFTER.
For precedence, counterspell uses the phrasing "process of casting" and "is casting" to show present tense.
If they meant you lose invisibility just because you decided to attack or cast, I believe the wording would have been made so.
But that's just me.
...cryptographic randomness!