I have a question about Shining Counterspell against Subtle Spell used by Alustriel Silverhand (Vecna: Eve of Ruin).
Shining Counterspell. Alustriel interrupts a creature she can see within 60 feet of herself that is casting a spell. If the spell is 5th level or lower, it fails and has no effect. If the spell is 6th level or higher, Alustriel makes an Intelligence check (DC 10 plus the spell’s level). On a successful check, the spell fails and has no effect. Whatever the spell’s level, the caster takes 11 (2d10) radiant damage if the spell fails.
Subtle Spell
Cost: 1 Sorcery Point
When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 Sorcery Point to cast it without any Verbal, Somatic, or Material components, except Material components that are consumed by the spell or that have a cost specified in the spell.
Can I block a casting when I do not see Verbal, Somatic, or Material components?
Yeah, actually, the 2024 Subtle Spell now lets you ignore Material components, as long as those Material components do not have a cost specification and are not consumed by the spell.
Yeah, actually, the 2024 Subtle Spell now lets you ignore Material components, as long as those Material components do not have a cost specification and are not consumed by the spell.
...
This just makes me aware of the fact that spellcasters reuse bat guano.
Yeah, actually, the 2024 Subtle Spell now lets you ignore Material components, as long as those Material components do not have a cost specification and are not consumed by the spell.
...
This just makes me aware of the fact that spellcasters reuse bat guano.
Recycling is important. Wizards have been doing it for nearly 50 years.
Yeah, actually, the 2024 Subtle Spell now lets you ignore Material components, as long as those Material components do not have a cost specification and are not consumed by the spell.
...
This just makes me aware of the fact that spellcasters reuse bat guano.
Would you prefer to hunt it down fresh on a regular basis? Lol
I think the subtle wording difference for this monster feature is important. Alustriel's ability requirements are different than the ones for the spell. Seeing a creature that is casting a spell is different from seeing a creature casting a spell. One requires that you notice they're casting a spell. The other (Alustriel's shining counter spell) just requires that you can see the creature, and separately that they are casting a spell.
The argument that says that subtle spell prevents normal counterspell is exactly the one that makes Alustriel's work differently.
I think the subtle wording difference for this monster feature is important. Alustriel's ability requirements are different than the ones for the spell. Seeing a creature that is casting a spell is different from seeing a creature casting a spell. One requires that you notice they're casting a spell. The other (Alustriel's shining counter spell) just requires that you can see the creature, and separately that they are casting a spell.
The argument that says that subtle spell prevents normal counterspell is exactly the one that makes Alustriel's work differently.
I’m sorry but I think you are splitting hairs on this one. And feel free to do so.
But in natural language both mean the same thing. I’m sure a bunch of PhD English professors can debate endlessly the vast differences that add up to nothing much. But if I had a DM that made this argument I would seriously just walk out of the session…well, forcefully click the Exit Game button on Roll20, lol.
And I could be completely wrong on this. Feel free to point that out as well :)
I mean, I laid it out there, and you just not engaging with the argument doesn't make it less valid. You saying that you'd walk out of a game where someone disagreed with you is pretty telling though.
In natural language they are different. "You see a person rolling dice" is different than "you see a person that rolls dice." Subtle spell only works because you notice what the casting is doing because of its wording. Different wording necessitates different interpretation.
Again, the difference is whether you knowing what they are doing, and the argument for the usual reading of the spell counterspell and subtle spell relies on you seeing what they are doing because of its wording. The wording "a creature that is casting..." does not require that you know whether that creature is casting, just wither it is doing that thing.
By the way, I am saying that this ability doesn't require the normal perception of the spell because "a creature that casts a spell" is one regardless of whether you can see them casting the spell. The wording on Alustriel's ability doesn't require seeing the spell, it just requires seeing the creature.
English is ambiguous, but I believe the difference between whether you need to see the action or not is the "that" in the sentence.
In natural language they are different. "You see a person rolling dice" is different than "you see a person that rolls dice." Subtle spell only works because you notice what the casting is doing because of its wording. Different wording necessitates different interpretation.
Again, the difference is whether you knowing what they are doing, and the argument for the usual reading of the spell counterspell and subtle spell relies on you seeing what they are doing because of its wording. The wording "a creature that is casting..." does not require that you know whether that creature is casting, just wither it is doing that thing.
By the way, I am saying that this ability doesn't require the normal perception of the spell because "a creature that casts a spell" is one regardless of whether you can see them casting the spell. The wording on Alustriel's ability doesn't require seeing the spell, it just requires seeing the creature.
English is ambiguous, but I believe the difference between whether you need to see the action or not is the "that" in the sentence.
If you honestly believe that the designers intentionally worded it differently so that it should work on a different criteria than counterspell then you should of course rule that the ability works differently.
Personally I don't for a second believe that the designers wrote Alustriel's ability with the intent of it working differently or even considered that they didn't use the exact same wording. They have proven time and time again that they just don't take that amount of care with their wordings a lot of the time (which is a problem IMO because sometimes they actually do).
I mean, I laid it out there, and you just not engaging with the argument doesn't make it less valid. You saying that you'd walk out of a game where someone disagreed with you is pretty telling though.
In natural language they are different. "You see a person rolling dice" is different than "you see a person that rolls dice." Subtle spell only works because you notice what the casting is doing because of its wording. Different wording necessitates different interpretation.
Again, the difference is whether you knowing what they are doing, and the argument for the usual reading of the spell counterspell and subtle spell relies on you seeing what they are doing because of its wording. The wording "a creature that is casting..." does not require that you know whether that creature is casting, just wither it is doing that thing.
By the way, I am saying that this ability doesn't require the normal perception of the spell because "a creature that casts a spell" is one regardless of whether you can see them casting the spell. The wording on Alustriel's ability doesn't require seeing the spell, it just requires seeing the creature.
English is ambiguous, but I believe the difference between whether you need to see the action or not is the "that" in the sentence.
Arguing (like Lawyer opening or debating)or engaging in semantics is a fair point, but it’s with the wrong audience. It should be with content creators and editors who should proof/edit prior to publishing.
me personally I would walk away from the table as well, only difference is that my table has not changed since 2nd edition, same dm, and mostly Same players for the most part. I would argue the point with my dm state my point bringing evidence as needed to support my opinion. But to entertain semantics is pointless and waist of my time, and I will just drop it due to just wanting to play. It won’t be a game changer or kill the group anyway.
The Shining Counterspell Reaction has nothing to do with Counterspell.
It's not a spell so it doesn't rely on spell slot or component and doesn't interfere with spellcasting limitation such as when you can't cast spell or break Invisibility etc...
I don't know wether they intended it or not, but i agree with WolfOfTheBees RAW it would be usable against a creature it can see casting a spell despite Subtle Spell and the official ruling doesn't apply in this case.
Can Alustriel see the creature within 60 feet? Is it casting a spell? Then Shining Counterspell can be used.
The Shining Counterspell Reaction has nothing to do with Counterspell.
It's not a spell so it doesn't rely on spell slot or component and doesn't interfere with spellcasting limitation such as when you can't cast spell or break Invisibility etc...
I don't know wether they intended it or not, but i agree with WolfOfTheBees RAW it would be usable against a creature it can see casting a spell despite Subtle Spell and the official ruling doesn't apply in this case.
Can Alustriel see the creature within 60 feet? Is it casting a spell? Then Shining Counterspell can be used.
"Alustriel interrupts a creature she can see within 60 feet of herself that is casting a spell."
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell" (range 60 feet; being able to see the target is a general requirement)
There is no meaningful difference between "that is casting a spell" and "in the process of casting a spell." Neither one says that you target a creature "that you recognize is casting a spell". Either Subtle Spell blocks Shining Counterspell or it doesn't block Counterspell.
From my reading, it doesn't per se, but it prevents the caster (including Alustriel) from recognizing that they are valid targets. Yes, you can declare "I use Shining/Counterspell on the person in robes who isn't acting", but anyone who does that is metagaming at best. If Alustriel had an additional sense that allowed her to view spells forming in a way that ignored Subtle Spell, that would be separate.
For all intents and purposes, Subtle Spell counters both Shining Counterspell and Counterspell.
Arguing (like Lawyer opening or debating)or engaging in semantics is a fair point, but it’s with the wrong audience. It should be with content creators and editors who should proof/edit prior to publishing.
This is the Rules & Game Mechanics forum section, it's the place for that where we discuss rules interactions among ourselves and share opinions.
More to the point - even if it works technically how does Alustriel ( or anyone else) know that the person 60’ away using subtle spell is actually casting a spell? Yes if used it would counter the spell, but why would it be used - how would she (they) know a spell was being cast?
The intention, table fun, meta knowledge, and confusion with differently worded rules are all reasons one might choose to rule differently at their table. Although, I do believe that there are other rules that require meta knowledge.
This is a recent release, correct? I think its dissimilarity to the new counterspell reaction trigger is especially damning in this case, considering that the new spell tells you that the spell you are interrupting needs to have components while this doesn't. The new counterspell trigger was present in UA 7, a half a year before this book was published.
Going back to the OP it appears to be an ability not a spell. Given Alustriel’s connection to the goddess of magic and the weave I can accept that she ( and other chosen of Mystra) might be able to sense the formation of a spell even with the use of subtle spell and then block it in some manner like this. That connection is not present in the vast majority of wizards and so this ability would not translate into a spell others could use. I’ve seen similar abilities to continuously sense magic in other stories and could see it in 5e as an epic feat - your eyes are opened to the weave and you see the threads and knots of magic in the world around you. This allows you to detect magic and identify spells and magic items as an ongoing ability.
The reason it is an ability not a spell, is because it converted her to a statblock. As they have said, and done, many times - monsters and NPCs are moving to statblocks and abilities instead of character sheets, spells, and spellslots. Just like all the baddies that now get Extra damage if an ally is within 5' of their target (but they don't call it Sneak Attack), or Pact Tactics (instead of calling it flanking), or Grave Bolt (instead of calling it Eldritch Blast), etc.
This is nothing more than a 5th level version of Counterspell, that doesn't use a spell slot. It would operate the same way. Chosen of Mystra aren't omniscient. If someone is using Subtle Spell, and there's no costly material component, there's NO indication that they are even casting a spell. Jeremy Crawford has been very clear about that in more than one video, including the ones talking about 2024 content.
Even a Deity in D&D can't tell you're casting a spell if you Subtle Cast it (they aren't omniscient either). After the fact, they can intuit that you were the caster, but not in time to Counterspell it.
As I have suggested many times, if you need a slide rule, magnifying glass, 2 hrs of time with a super computer, and a PhD to decipher a rule - you're likely reading too much into it.
Of course, your table, your rules - but the simplest explanation (that it is just a 5th level Counterspell reduced to a statblock) is likely to be the way they intended it.
Hi All,
I have a question about Shining Counterspell against Subtle Spell used by Alustriel Silverhand (Vecna: Eve of Ruin).
Shining Counterspell. Alustriel interrupts a creature she can see within 60 feet of herself that is casting a spell. If the spell is 5th level or lower, it fails and has no effect. If the spell is 6th level or higher, Alustriel makes an Intelligence check (DC 10 plus the spell’s level). On a successful check, the spell fails and has no effect. Whatever the spell’s level, the caster takes 11 (2d10) radiant damage if the spell fails.
Subtle Spell
Cost: 1 Sorcery Point
When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 Sorcery Point to cast it without any Verbal, Somatic, or Material components, except Material components that are consumed by the spell or that have a cost specified in the spell.
Can I block a casting when I do not see Verbal, Somatic, or Material components?
Thank you in advance for your opinions!
Usually Subtle spell is the way to get around Counterspell. So it should work here as well.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
ThriKreenWarrior is correct, but I'll just add a little official support for it; this was explicitly answered in the Sage Advice Compendium here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA050
pronouns: he/she/they
Yeah, actually, the 2024 Subtle Spell now lets you ignore Material components, as long as those Material components do not have a cost specification and are not consumed by the spell.
...
This just makes me aware of the fact that spellcasters reuse bat guano.
How to add Tooltips.
Recycling is important. Wizards have been doing it for nearly 50 years.
Would you prefer to hunt it down fresh on a regular basis? Lol
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think the subtle wording difference for this monster feature is important. Alustriel's ability requirements are different than the ones for the spell. Seeing a creature that is casting a spell is different from seeing a creature casting a spell. One requires that you notice they're casting a spell. The other (Alustriel's shining counter spell) just requires that you can see the creature, and separately that they are casting a spell.
The argument that says that subtle spell prevents normal counterspell is exactly the one that makes Alustriel's work differently.
I’m sorry but I think you are splitting hairs on this one. And feel free to do so.
But in natural language both mean the same thing. I’m sure a bunch of PhD English professors can debate endlessly the vast differences that add up to nothing much. But if I had a DM that made this argument I would seriously just walk out of the session…well, forcefully click the Exit Game button on Roll20, lol.
And I could be completely wrong on this. Feel free to point that out as well :)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I mean, I laid it out there, and you just not engaging with the argument doesn't make it less valid. You saying that you'd walk out of a game where someone disagreed with you is pretty telling though.
In natural language they are different. "You see a person rolling dice" is different than "you see a person that rolls dice." Subtle spell only works because you notice what the casting is doing because of its wording. Different wording necessitates different interpretation.
Again, the difference is whether you knowing what they are doing, and the argument for the usual reading of the spell counterspell and subtle spell relies on you seeing what they are doing because of its wording. The wording "a creature that is casting..." does not require that you know whether that creature is casting, just wither it is doing that thing.
By the way, I am saying that this ability doesn't require the normal perception of the spell because "a creature that casts a spell" is one regardless of whether you can see them casting the spell. The wording on Alustriel's ability doesn't require seeing the spell, it just requires seeing the creature.
English is ambiguous, but I believe the difference between whether you need to see the action or not is the "that" in the sentence.
If you honestly believe that the designers intentionally worded it differently so that it should work on a different criteria than counterspell then you should of course rule that the ability works differently.
Personally I don't for a second believe that the designers wrote Alustriel's ability with the intent of it working differently or even considered that they didn't use the exact same wording. They have proven time and time again that they just don't take that amount of care with their wordings a lot of the time (which is a problem IMO because sometimes they actually do).
Arguing (like Lawyer opening or debating)or engaging in semantics is a fair point, but it’s with the wrong audience. It should be with content creators and editors who should proof/edit prior to publishing.
me personally I would walk away from the table as well, only difference is that my table has not changed since 2nd edition, same dm, and mostly Same players for the most part. I would argue the point with my dm state my point bringing evidence as needed to support my opinion. But to entertain semantics is pointless and waist of my time, and I will just drop it due to just wanting to play. It won’t be a game changer or kill the group anyway.
The Shining Counterspell Reaction has nothing to do with Counterspell.
It's not a spell so it doesn't rely on spell slot or component and doesn't interfere with spellcasting limitation such as when you can't cast spell or break Invisibility etc...
I don't know wether they intended it or not, but i agree with WolfOfTheBees RAW it would be usable against a creature it can see casting a spell despite Subtle Spell and the official ruling doesn't apply in this case.
Can Alustriel see the creature within 60 feet? Is it casting a spell? Then Shining Counterspell can be used.
"Alustriel interrupts a creature she can see within 60 feet of herself that is casting a spell."
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell" (range 60 feet; being able to see the target is a general requirement)
There is no meaningful difference between "that is casting a spell" and "in the process of casting a spell." Neither one says that you target a creature "that you recognize is casting a spell". Either Subtle Spell blocks Shining Counterspell or it doesn't block Counterspell.
From my reading, it doesn't per se, but it prevents the caster (including Alustriel) from recognizing that they are valid targets. Yes, you can declare "I use Shining/Counterspell on the person in robes who isn't acting", but anyone who does that is metagaming at best. If Alustriel had an additional sense that allowed her to view spells forming in a way that ignored Subtle Spell, that would be separate.
For all intents and purposes, Subtle Spell counters both Shining Counterspell and Counterspell.
How to add Tooltips.
This is the Rules & Game Mechanics forum section, it's the place for that where we discuss rules interactions among ourselves and share opinions.
A Seven Sisters who's a Chosen of Mystra shouldn't be that easily ountered by a low level Sorcerer!
On a more serious note though, i don't think it'd be RAI if the difference in wording of each targeting actually matters anyway.
More to the point - even if it works technically how does Alustriel ( or anyone else) know that the person 60’ away using subtle spell is actually casting a spell? Yes if used it would counter the spell, but why would it be used - how would she (they) know a spell was being cast?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The intention, table fun, meta knowledge, and confusion with differently worded rules are all reasons one might choose to rule differently at their table. Although, I do believe that there are other rules that require meta knowledge.
This is a recent release, correct? I think its dissimilarity to the new counterspell reaction trigger is especially damning in this case, considering that the new spell tells you that the spell you are interrupting needs to have components while this doesn't. The new counterspell trigger was present in UA 7, a half a year before this book was published.
Going back to the OP it appears to be an ability not a spell. Given Alustriel’s connection to the goddess of magic and the weave I can accept that she ( and other chosen of Mystra) might be able to sense the formation of a spell even with the use of subtle spell and then block it in some manner like this. That connection is not present in the vast majority of wizards and so this ability would not translate into a spell others could use. I’ve seen similar abilities to continuously sense magic in other stories and could see it in 5e as an epic feat - your eyes are opened to the weave and you see the threads and knots of magic in the world around you. This allows you to detect magic and identify spells and magic items as an ongoing ability.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The reason it is an ability not a spell, is because it converted her to a statblock. As they have said, and done, many times - monsters and NPCs are moving to statblocks and abilities instead of character sheets, spells, and spellslots. Just like all the baddies that now get Extra damage if an ally is within 5' of their target (but they don't call it Sneak Attack), or Pact Tactics (instead of calling it flanking), or Grave Bolt (instead of calling it Eldritch Blast), etc.
This is nothing more than a 5th level version of Counterspell, that doesn't use a spell slot. It would operate the same way. Chosen of Mystra aren't omniscient. If someone is using Subtle Spell, and there's no costly material component, there's NO indication that they are even casting a spell. Jeremy Crawford has been very clear about that in more than one video, including the ones talking about 2024 content.
Even a Deity in D&D can't tell you're casting a spell if you Subtle Cast it (they aren't omniscient either). After the fact, they can intuit that you were the caster, but not in time to Counterspell it.
As I have suggested many times, if you need a slide rule, magnifying glass, 2 hrs of time with a super computer, and a PhD to decipher a rule - you're likely reading too much into it.
Of course, your table, your rules - but the simplest explanation (that it is just a 5th level Counterspell reduced to a statblock) is likely to be the way they intended it.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.