Because "with components" modifies the spell's casting, does not mean that it requires a specific caster to provide those components.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but there is a particular problem with this interpretation.
A common mistake when it comes to Counterspell is not realizing that when you cast the Counterspell spell you are actually targeting a creature. You are not targeting the spell that is being cast, or the spellcasting process or anything like that. You are targeting a creature. According to the spell description, in order for that creature to be a valid target for the Counterspell spell, you must actually see that creature casting a spell.
Important Note: It does NOT say "when you see a creature that is casting a spell". That would have an entirely different meaning which is more aligned with your interpretation.
If it said that any spell casting would be valid.
Important Note: It does NOT say "when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself provide Verbal, Somatic, or Material components while casting a spell." That would have an entirely different meaning that what is in the spell description and which is more aligned with your interpretation. The wording in the spell is compatible with both your reading and mine.
Oh, i see what the confusion is... you think they're casting the main spell. They're not. I'll grant their casting, but they're just casting their power contribution, not the spell itself.
And the only way you can see a creature casting is if they are using components. So even if your interpretation was accurate, you still couldn't use them as a trigger, because you don't actually see them casting.
So, in the section on Casting a Circle Spell, they are casting but not casting? What? There is no "casting their power contribution". That's a thing that you made up. If the secondary spell casters are casting as part of participating in the casting of a Circle spell, they are casting the Circle spell. They are not the only one casting the spell and they may not be the one directing the spell but they are casting the spell.
If a group of people play football, you don't pick the quarterback from each and say they are playing and everyone else is just helping and can't be tackled because they aren't the player.
I disagree. They clearly aren't casting the spell - they don't need to know it, and they don't spend a spell slot of the level the spell is. They in no way satisfy the rules to be casting the spell. I will grant they are casting, but they are not 'casting that spell'. So at best you could counterspell their contribution, assuming they satisfied the trigger.
They are clearly described as having actions under Casting a Circle Spell. The Circle Magic section creates an exception to the normal spellcasting rules so the fact that the secondary spell casters don't know the spell and sometimes don't expend a slot doesn't matter and in no way invalidates them as casters. The Circle Magic section lists them as casters in the section on casting a Circle spell. That is an exception that overrides any restrictions from the general rules on spell casting.
There is no "we will allow you to sit on the Circle but do not grant you the rank of Caster". The casters of the spell are the primary caster and one or more secondary casters. The primary caster initiates the spell casting and everyone participates in the casting.
RAW, to see a creature casting a spell is to see the creature using components.
That's never stated in the 2024 rules or Sage Advice.
RAW changed from 2014 to 2024 and this might be an unintentional change or an intentional change, particularly if they had already considered the inclusion of Circle Magic and intended for the secondary casters to be valid targets if the spell casting was otherwise valid for targeting purposes.
Secondly, we are explicitly told that the primary caster can trigger Counterspell. The fact that nothing is said about the secondary casters would seem to strongly indicate that will not.
I obviously disagree with several of your assertions but I want to address this in particular. Nothing being said about the secondary casters says and indicates, well, nothing.
First, I hope the clause is in error because it creates some odd interactions with reactions other than Counterspell. Second, the action initates casting which is not actually casting. Therefore, the spell is not being cast until after the Magic action has been taken. Counterspell is normally used as a reaction to a single Magic action to cast a spell but if a spell has a longer cast time, are you only able to Counterspell it during the first Magic action, throughout, or at the end? I read seeing a creature casting (present tense) a spell to mean that the caster is a valid target throughout. In your reading, if I was Circle casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, after the first action, I could not be Counterspelled. However, if it was not a Circle spell, wouldn't you allow it to be Counterspelled at any point in the casting?
If Counterspell can counter a spell throughout the casting, then any valid casters (whether you believe that is only the primary caster, also the secondary casters, or no individual creature) can be Counterspelled throughout the Circle spell's casting which starts after the magic action to initiate the casting until the spell is completed per Completing the Casting. The clause in Initiating a Circle Spell gives and additional opportunity during an action that the authors do not appear to be consider part of the spell's casting.
The clause does not say if a reaction would trigger when a creature casts a spell, it only triggers when you take this action. It says "it also triggers when you take this action". While the spell is in the process of being cast, it does not need anything validating it as a valid target of Counterspell.
Regardless of your thoughts on secondary casters, if the Circle spell is not made subtle, at the very least, the primary caster is a valid target for Counterspell when they take the Magic action to initiate casting the spell and any point after that until the spell completes. Even if you do not think secondary casters are valid targets, it could be a reaction taken on one of the secondary caster's turns before the spell completes. (A Halfling initiates casting a Fireball. A Goliath contributes to the spell and then moves revealing the Halfling primary caster holding the biggest ball of bat poop that you have ever seen. You Counterspell the Halfling.)
RAW, to see a creature casting a spell is to see the creature using components.
That's never stated in the 2024 rules or Sage Advice.
RAW changed from 2014 to 2024 and this might be an unintentional change or an intentional change, particularly if they had already considered the inclusion of Circle Magic and intended for the secondary casters to be valid targets if the spell casting was otherwise valid for targeting purposes.
How do you see them casting if they don't use components?
Literally the only thing Subtle Spell does is let you not use components. ie, not using components makes it impossible to tell you're casting a spell.
No components: they say no words, make no motions, and use no items. They just stand there. (ie, you can be a secondary caster while silenced and hog-tied).
RAW, to see a creature casting a spell is to see the creature using components.
That's never stated in the 2024 rules or Sage Advice.
RAW changed from 2014 to 2024 and this might be an unintentional change or an intentional change, particularly if they had already considered the inclusion of Circle Magic and intended for the secondary casters to be valid targets if the spell casting was otherwise valid for targeting purposes.
How do you see them casting if they don't use components?
Literally the only thing Subtle Spell does is let you not use components. ie, not using components makes it impossible to tell you're casting a spell.
No components: they say no words, make no motions, and use no items. They just stand there. (ie, you can be a secondary caster while silenced and hog-tied).
Ask Jeremy Crawford or whomever answers Sage Advice. I don't care if wisps of magic energy extend from the secondary casters to the forming spell (like in the Red Wizard image) or if they are invisible as fellow casters. I don't really care. What I want more than to be proven right is to get an official answer in Sage Advice. I have already put together a wish list of clarifications.
However, 2024 RAW does not define how you see a caster casting. It never defines how loud you have to be for verbal components. It never defines how showy somatic components are. It never defines what you generally do with material components (some spells do describe what you do). All it says is that you must see a creature, the creature must be casting a spell, and the spell must be cast with verbal, somatic, and material components.
You can, RAW, fiddle with bat poop in your pocket under your cloak and you will visibly casting a spell that can be identified as Fireball. Don't tell me that makes more sense than secondary casters being visible casting while the primary caster is responsible for the spell's components.
Secondly, we are explicitly told that the primary caster can trigger Counterspell. The fact that nothing is said about the secondary casters would seem to strongly indicate that will not.
I obviously disagree with several of your assertions but I want to address this in particular. Nothing being said about the secondary casters says and indicates, well, nothing.
First, I hope the clause is in error because it creates some odd interactions with reactions other than Counterspell. Second, the action initates casting which is not actually casting. Therefore, the spell is not being cast until after the Magic action has been taken. Counterspell is normally used as a reaction to a single Magic action to cast a spell but if a spell has a longer cast time, are you only able to Counterspell it during the first Magic action, throughout, or at the end? I read seeing a creature casting (present tense) a spell to mean that the caster is a valid target throughout. In your reading, if I was Circle casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, after the first action, I could not be Counterspelled. However, if it was not a Circle spell, wouldn't you allow it to be Counterspelled at any point in the casting?
If Counterspell can counter a spell throughout the casting, then any valid casters (whether you believe that is only the primary caster, also the secondary casters, or no individual creature) can be Counterspelled throughout the Circle spell's casting which starts after the magic action to initiate the casting until the spell is completed per Completing the Casting. The clause in Initiating a Circle Spell gives and additional opportunity during an action that the authors do not appear to be consider part of the spell's casting.
The clause does not say if a reaction would trigger when a creature casts a spell, it only triggers when you take this action. It says "it also triggers when you take this action". While the spell is in the process of being cast, it does not need anything validating it as a valid target of Counterspell.
Regardless of your thoughts on secondary casters, if the Circle spell is not made subtle, at the very least, the primary caster is a valid target for Counterspell when they take the Magic action to initiate casting the spell and any point after that until the spell completes. Even if you do not think secondary casters are valid targets, it could be a reaction taken on one of the secondary caster's turns before the spell completes. (A Halfling initiates casting a Fireball. A Goliath contributes to the spell and then moves revealing the Halfling primary caster holding the biggest ball of bat poop that you have ever seen. You Counterspell the Halfling.)
First off, let me say that I get where you are coming from. I fully agree that it feels like you should be able to Counterspell the secondary casters. RAW, however, states a very specific trigger for the Reaction to cast Counterspell: "[W]hen you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components."
Now, I will agree that there is an excellent argument to be made for allowing Counterspell after the primary caster has begun the spell (and by that I don't mean instantly after the take the Magic Action). The precise wording of the trigger is 'casting' and not 'casts'. That answers both the question about using Counterspell on spells that have a casting time of 1 minute or longer as well as using it on other Turns (Turns, not Rounds) after the primary caster began. Assuming the spell has a V, S, and/or M Component, they are 'casting' up until the spell is launched.
Ordinarily, with a spell that takes 1 Minute or longer to cast it is pretty clear someone is casting the entire time. Spells that have a Casting Time of 1 Action launch immediately after the action, so after that the character is no longer 'casting'. The problem is that the primary caster appears to be in a position that only exists because the designers messed something up; they created the undefined realm of a spell that has a casting time of greater than 1 Action, but less than 1 minute. However, we know the primary caster triggered the possibility of Counterspell right when they started, which means they are being treated at that moment as 'casting', so it seems to make sense that they would remain in that state right up to the point where the spell is actually released.
Is that absolute black letter RAW? Probably not, but it is extremely, extremely close, mostly because the funny half-world of 'more than an Action but less than 1 Minute' exists.
However, RAW, the secondary casters still seem to be completely off limits at present because it does not appear that they fulfill the entire triggering requirement; they don't appear to have to use any components.
I completely dislike that idea because it feels like it should be obvious what they are doing (I don't like the idea that Circle Casting can be completely unnoticed while it is occurring), which should make them valid targets for Counterspell, but, RAW neither of those are established (i.e. there is no rule that says they must be obvious, even if they are obvious that is not the RAW Trigger that allows someone to cast Counterspell), so barring some sort of official clarification that is where we are at.
Now, with that said, I whole heartedly support people making houserules to deal with the situation until such clarification occurs.
Counterspell is normally used as a reaction to a single Magic action to cast a spell but if a spell has a longer cast time, are you only able to Counterspell it during the first Magic action, throughout, or at the end? I read seeing a creature casting (present tense) a spell to mean that the caster is a valid target throughout. In your reading, if I was Circle casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, after the first action, I could not be Counterspelled. However, if it was not a Circle spell, wouldn't you allow it to be Counterspelled at any point in the casting?
This is the most interesting aspect of this side discussion and it's something that I'm not sure that I've seen discussed anywhere yet when it comes to the mechanics of the Counterspell spell.
Currently, the way that I would rule it is like this:
If an individual spellcaster is casting a spell with a long casting time (casting a spell as a ritual, for example), they must take the Magic action on each of their turns. I would rule that this Magic action can trigger the Reaction to be able to cast the Counterspell spell every time. But you cannot cast Counterspell while they are not taking the Magic action. Meaning, while the ritual spell is being cast, there are multiple triggers that you can react to -- but it is not one long ongoing trigger. So, for example, you cannot cast the Counterspell spell on your own turn in this case because you would not be reacting to anything -- there is no Magic action currently happening that you are "interrupting". Instead, on any of the target creature's turns, while the target creature is taking the Magic action you can cast Counterspell.
The rule for individually casting a spell with a long casting time:
Certain spells—including a spell cast as a Ritual—require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. While you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, you must take the Magic action on each of your turns . . .
I would rule it the same way for Circle Magic. Circle Magic has a very similar mechanic:
If the spell has a casting time of 1 minute or more, you and each secondary caster must take the Magic action on each of your turns for the entire casting time
If the Circle Spell that is being cast has a longer casting time of 1 minute or longer, then there are multiple triggers that you could react to, but it's not one long ongoing trigger. Specifically, in this case, I would rule that on any of the primary caster's turns, while that primary caster is taking the Magic action you can cast Counterspell.
RAW, to see a creature casting a spell is to see the creature using components.
That's never stated in the 2024 rules or Sage Advice.
RAW changed from 2014 to 2024 and this might be an unintentional change or an intentional change, particularly if they had already considered the inclusion of Circle Magic and intended for the secondary casters to be valid targets if the spell casting was otherwise valid for targeting purposes.
How do you see them casting if they don't use components?
Literally the only thing Subtle Spell does is let you not use components. ie, not using components makes it impossible to tell you're casting a spell.
No components: they say no words, make no motions, and use no items. They just stand there. (ie, you can be a secondary caster while silenced and hog-tied).
Ask Jeremy Crawford or whomever answers Sage Advice. I don't care if wisps of magic energy extend from the secondary casters to the forming spell (like in the Red Wizard image) or if they are invisible as fellow casters. I don't really care. What I want more than to be proven right is to get an official answer in Sage Advice. I have already put together a wish list of clarifications.
However, 2024 RAW does not define how you see a caster casting. It never defines how loud you have to be for verbal components. It never defines how showy somatic components are. It never defines what you generally do with material components (some spells do describe what you do). All it says is that you must see a creature, the creature must be casting a spell, and the spell must be cast with verbal, somatic, and material components.
You can, RAW, fiddle with bat poop in your pocket under your cloak and you will visibly casting a spell that can be identified as Fireball. Don't tell me that makes more sense than secondary casters being visible casting while the primary caster is responsible for the spell's components.
No, you must see a creature casting a spell with components. You can't separate those all into separate clauses. You have to see all of those things: the creature, casting, and the components, or there's no trigger.
Edit: Also, it does kind of define some of those things. Casting a spell with verbal components breaks hiding, so it's louder than a whisper. Casting a spell with somatic (or material) components does not break hiding, so they're not showy.
Counterspell is normally used as a reaction to a single Magic action to cast a spell but if a spell has a longer cast time, are you only able to Counterspell it during the first Magic action, throughout, or at the end? I read seeing a creature casting (present tense) a spell to mean that the caster is a valid target throughout. In your reading, if I was Circle casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, after the first action, I could not be Counterspelled. However, if it was not a Circle spell, wouldn't you allow it to be Counterspelled at any point in the casting?
This is the most interesting aspect of this side discussion and it's something that I'm not sure that I've seen discussed anywhere yet when it comes to the mechanics of the Counterspell spell.
Currently, the way that I would rule it is like this:
If an individual spellcaster is casting a spell with a long casting time (casting a spell as a ritual, for example), they must take the Magic action on each of their turns. I would rule that this Magic action can trigger the Reaction to be able to cast the Counterspell spell every time. But you cannot cast Counterspell while they are not taking the Magic action. Meaning, while the ritual spell is being cast, there are multiple triggers that you can react to -- but it is not one long ongoing trigger. So, for example, you cannot cast the Counterspell spell on your own turn in this case because you would not be reacting to anything -- there is no Magic action currently happening that you are "interrupting". Instead, on any of the target creature's turns, while the target creature is taking the Magic action you can cast Counterspell.
The rule for individually casting a spell with a long casting time:
Certain spells—including a spell cast as a Ritual—require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. While you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, you must take the Magic action on each of your turns . . .
I would rule it the same way for Circle Magic. Circle Magic has a very similar mechanic:
If the spell has a casting time of 1 minute or more, you and each secondary caster must take the Magic action on each of your turns for the entire casting time
If the Circle Spell that is being cast has a longer casting time of 1 minute or longer, then there are multiple triggers that you could react to, but it's not one long ongoing trigger. Specifically, in this case, I would rule that on any of the primary caster's turns, while that primary caster is taking the Magic action you can cast Counterspell.
Because I think the "longer casting time" discussion is intriguing and relevant... how, if at all, would you change the way you rule this if you were not in an initiative situation? It would seem to me that rituals and spells that take 1+ minute to cast are generally NOT cast in combat/initiative situations, so the idea of a turn makes little sense and a round is simply a period of 6 seconds. I also think there are plenty of times when a Circle Spell might be cast in non-initiative situations, and I agree with esampson that however you rule for long-casting-time-spells is how you should rule for Circle Spells.
If the Circle Spell that is being cast has a longer casting time of 1 minute or longer, then there are multiple triggers that you could react to, but it's not one long ongoing trigger. Specifically, in this case, I would rule that on any of the primary caster's turns, while that primary caster is taking the Magic action you can cast Counterspell.
Because I think the "longer casting time" discussion is intriguing and relevant... how, if at all, would you change the way you rule this if you were not in an initiative situation? It would seem to me that rituals and spells that take 1+ minute to cast are generally NOT cast in combat/initiative situations, so the idea of a turn makes little sense and a round is simply a period of 6 seconds. I also think there are plenty of times when a Circle Spell might be cast in non-initiative situations, and I agree with esampson that however you rule for long-casting-time-spells is how you should rule for Circle Spells.
Narratively (outside of combat) if a character was to walk in on someone that is in the middle of casting a ritual spell, I think that the character just casts Counterspell when he sees that spellcaster casting a spell.
The question is: Does the act of declaring that you are casting Counterspell cause initiative to be rolled before the Counterspell spell is actually cast (even though you are "only" attempting to take a Reaction, not a full action)? Does the act of actually walking in on that ritual cause initiative to be rolled if that spellcaster notices you approaching? These things would have to be situationally handled by the DM, but I think generally it's a yes to both questions, especially in obviously hostile situations. Also, casting Counterspell is pretty much always a hostile act in and of itself.
Counterspell is normally used as a reaction to a single Magic action to cast a spell but if a spell has a longer cast time, are you only able to Counterspell it during the first Magic action, throughout, or at the end? I read seeing a creature casting (present tense) a spell to mean that the caster is a valid target throughout. In your reading, if I was Circle casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, after the first action, I could not be Counterspelled. However, if it was not a Circle spell, wouldn't you allow it to be Counterspelled at any point in the casting?
This is the most interesting aspect of this side discussion and it's something that I'm not sure that I've seen discussed anywhere yet when it comes to the mechanics of the Counterspell spell.
Currently, the way that I would rule it is like this:
If an individual spellcaster is casting a spell with a long casting time (casting a spell as a ritual, for example), they must take the Magic action on each of their turns. I would rule that this Magic action can trigger the Reaction to be able to cast the Counterspell spell every time. But you cannot cast Counterspell while they are not taking the Magic action. Meaning, while the ritual spell is being cast, there are multiple triggers that you can react to -- but it is not one long ongoing trigger. So, for example, you cannot cast the Counterspell spell on your own turn in this case because you would not be reacting to anything -- there is no Magic action currently happening that you are "interrupting". Instead, on any of the target creature's turns, while the target creature is taking the Magic action you can cast Counterspell.
I feel like Counterspell was written completely forgetting spells can take longer than 1 action to cast.
The Counterspell reaction is triggered when you see a creature that meets the other relevant requirements. It's not when a creature casts a spell, it is when you see it (regardless of how you define that). Since you can take reactions on your turn, including in response to your own actions (Feather Fall could trigger if you fell from your own action), it would be valid to trigger Counterspell when you walk into a room and perceive a qualifying spell being cast on your turn. The casting is not paused between the caster's (or casters') turns.
I don't think Reactions can or should be restricted to just actions.
The Counterspell reaction is triggered when you see a creature that meets the other relevant requirements. It's not when a creature casts a spell, it is when you see it (regardless of how you define that).
No. Just seeing a creature is not enough to trigger your Reaction for Counterspell. You must actually see a creature perform a specific activity. Again, it's not "when you see a creature that is casting a spell", it's "when you see a creature casting a spell".
As an example, suppose the rule stated: ". . . when you see a Dwarf attacking a Giant Spider with an axe". By far the best interpretation of this is to picture a Dwarf that is holding an axe and is using that axe by swinging it at the unarmed Giant Spider in an attempt to strike that Giant Spider with it. We really should not be picturing an unarmed Dwarf punching or kicking a Giant Spider while that Giant Spider is holding an axe. If that second idea was the intent, the statement wouldn't be written that way.
Since you can take reactions on your turn, including in response to your own actions (Feather Fall could trigger if you fell from your own action), it would be valid to trigger Counterspell when you walk into a room and perceive a qualifying spell being cast on your turn. The casting is not paused between the caster's (or casters') turns.
I don't think Reactions can or should be restricted to just actions.
In my opinion, this is just one of the unfortunate consequences of resolving the activities of the game world in a turn-based manner. Narratively, we are encouraged to picture everything within a Round as happening at more or less the same time give or take. But mechanically it all happens in order.
As an example, suppose that narratively an enemy is clearly running across a 500-foot-wide courtyard towards an open door which the enemy has clear motive to enter. You have some sort of Feature that triggers "when you see a creature moving from one location to another". So, any 5 feet of movement would trigger it. On your turn you enter the courtyard and see the running enemy. But how can you really know that the enemy is still running? How can we know that he didn't change his mind right at the end of his last turn after he had moved 30 feet and now, he has decided to remain standing right where he is? The only way that you can actually react to a creature that is moving is to wait until it is that creature's turn and then when that creature actually moves, you react to it.
The same sort of concept applies to the Counterspell trigger. It is even more especially apparent in light of how the Counterspell clarification is worded for Circle Magic. The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature casting a spell". The only time that you can actually be sure that the creature is (still) casting a spell is when they take the Magic action (or a Bonus Action or Reaction) to actually perform the activity of casting it. You react to that activity that is happening during that action. Otherwise, we have the same problem as the running man. The enemy has previously been taking Magic actions in an attempt to cast a Ritual spell. How do we actually know that the previous Magic action that was taken wasn't the last one? Not all spell effects are perceptible. Maybe the spell has already been cast, and we are just a moment too late. Maybe the creature saw us coming and aborted the effort to complete the ritual casting, which makes it an invalid target since he is no longer casting a spell. The only way that we know that the creature is (still) casting the spell is when it takes the next Magic action -- and that's what we interrupt. We respond in reaction to the activity that we witness during that creature's Magic action.
Circle Magic is just an extension of the above mechanic. Every time the primary caster takes the Magic action, it triggers an opportunity to react by casting Counterspell at that primary caster. But in between its Magic actions we cannot really be sure if the casting is still ongoing so we have nothing tangible that we can react to until we witness the next Magic action.
That's how I currently understand the mechanics anyway. I would be interested in seeing a lot more opinions from many other people about that detail.
The Counterspell reaction is triggered when you see a creature that meets the other relevant requirements. It's not when a creature casts a spell, it is when you see it (regardless of how you define that).
No. Just seeing a creature is not enough to trigger your Reaction for Counterspell. You must actually see a creature perform a specific activity. Again, it's not "when you see a creature that is casting a spell", it's "when you see a creature casting a spell".
I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. The issue is that if the casting time is greater than 1 action or you are casting a Circle spell, the "casting a spell" hasn't stopped because your turn ends. It ends after the last secondary caster has taken their last magic action (Circle spell) or you have taken your last magic action if it is a non-Circle spell with a casting time longer than 1 action. During that time, you can potentially see the creature casting a spell and therefore you can react with Counterspell, even if it is not the caster's turn. You are not only casting during your turn. You don't only need to maintain concentration on your turn. It is throughout the casting. It does not matter if mechanically you only take the Magic action on your turn.
The same sort of concept applies to the Counterspell trigger. It is even more especially apparent in light of how the Counterspell clarification is worded for Circle Magic. The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature casting a spell". The only time that you can actually be sure that the creature is (still) casting a spell is when they take the Magic action (or a Bonus Action or Reaction) to actually perform the activity of casting it. You react to that activity that is happening during that action.
Unlike movement, casting a spell with a casting time greater than 1 action explicitly continues past the initial action. It can be interrupted or cancelled, but it has not ended because the initial action has completed.
The enemy has previously been taking Magic actions in an attempt to cast a Ritual spell. How do we actually know that the previous Magic action that was taken wasn't the last one? Not all spell effects are perceptible. Maybe the spell has already been cast, and we are just a moment too late. Maybe the creature saw us coming and aborted the effort to complete the ritual casting, which makes it an invalid target since he is no longer casting a spell. The only way that we know that the creature is (still) casting the spell is when it takes the next Magic action -- and that's what we interrupt. We respond in reaction to the activity that we witness during that creature's Magic action.
If the enemy's previous Magic action that was taken was the last one, the casting has been completed and the enemy is no longer casting. The enemy cannot abort casting the spell until their next turn unless they have a reaction that uses Concentration or prevents Concentration. On their turn, they can choose to take the next Magic action (continuing the spell or potentially completing it) or not to (aborting it).
I think the concentration angle is compelling. It's curious that it hasn't seem to come up before, and I'm glad this question on Circle Spells has brought it forth.
If the enemy's previous Magic action that was taken was the last one, the casting has been completed and the enemy is no longer casting. The enemy cannot abort casting the spell until their next turn unless they have a reaction that uses Concentration or prevents Concentration. On their turn, they can choose to take the next Magic action (continuing the spell or potentially completing it) or not to (aborting it).
As the primary caster, you take the Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell. Until the Circle spell's casting is complete, you must maintain Concentration on the spell. If any caster's Concentration is broken, the spell fails.
The creator can end Concentration at any time (no action required).
Conclusion, a primary caster can abort the casting at any time.
I think the concentration angle is compelling. It's curious that it hasn't seem to come up before, and I'm glad this question on Circle Spells has brought it forth.
It hasn't come up to any great degree because, as you noted earlier, the spells being discussed aren't combat spells
A DM can certainly construct some kind of ticking clock scenario for a spell, Circle or otherwise, that takes a longer time to cast though, where initiative and tracking turns/rounds would matter. If anything, I'd say the wording on Circle spell is more restrictive on when Counterspell is eligible
If a Reaction would trigger when a creature casts a spell—such as the Reaction taken to cast Counterspell—it also triggers when you take this action to initiate a Circle spell.
You only get one shot to Counterspell (or take any reaction at all that would be triggered by a casting) a Circle spell, and that's on the first turn when the primary caster kicks it off
Miss that initial window, and your only options to disrupt the Circle spell are the usual ones to disrupt Concentration. Those subsequent Magic actions don't provide triggers for a Counterspell
I think a DM would be justified in reverse-engineering a similar rule for 'normal' ritual spells or other spells with longer casting times, but there would be no real RAW support for it that I'm aware of
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
. . .As an example, suppose the rule stated: ". . . when you see a Dwarf attacking a Giant Spider with an axe". By far the best interpretation of this is to picture a Dwarf that is holding an axe and is using that axe by swinging it at the unarmed Giant Spider in an attempt to strike that Giant Spider with it. We really should not be picturing an unarmed Dwarf punching or kicking a Giant Spider while that Giant Spider is holding an axe. If that second idea was the intent, the statement wouldn't be written that way. . .
I will provide a counter example:
Suppose the rule stated ". . .when you see someone carrying a weapon'. Do you need to wait until their action to see if they really are 'carrying' it?
I disagree with the assessment that you have to wait until the character actually makes an attack roll in your example, because combat is fluid, but I will agree that there is some validity to the argument since 'attacks' are semi-specific moments in a combat. That's a specific, though, and we can set it aside.
Casting a spell, in the context we are talking about, is not semi-specific but is instead a continuous action that occurs over the Casting Time (and in the case of Circle Magic and spells that are a single action that casting time becomes slightly extended). Sure, the primary caster might be able to shut down the spell (I'm not saying they can or they can't, just that the possibility exists), but the triggering person in my example could drop their weapon with almost the exact same amount of ease. However, unless they had readied the action to drop the weapon, by the rules they don't get to do so until it is their turn.
Now, we could get very complicated and split hairs and see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while constructing theoretical situations where we agree that the primary caster has the ability to ready an action to drop the spell, then debate whether the casters Reaction gets to Trigger before the Reaction of the person using Counterspell, but honestly, why bother? If such an improbable situation existed, and if we decide that the primary casters Reaction took precedence, all it would accomplish is saving the person casting Counterspell a spell slot while ensuring the action succeeded. It would be much more in the primary casters best interest to not drop the spell, force their opponent to burn a spell slot, and possibly make their save and continue.
If a Reaction would trigger when a creature casts a spell—such as the Reaction taken to cast Counterspell—it also triggers when you take this action to initiate a Circle spell.
You only get one shot to Counterspell (or take any reaction at all that would be triggered by a casting) a Circle spell, and that's on the first turn when the primary caster kicks it off
Miss that initial window, and your only options to disrupt the Circle spell are the usual ones to disrupt Concentration. Those subsequent Magic actions don't provide triggers for a Counterspell
. . .
You are misreading that. They say that the Reaction also Triggers in this case. That means that this particular moment is an additional Trigger. The statement does nothing to remove the Reaction's original trigger.
In essence, what they are establishing is that, yes, the act of being primary caster is essentially one of 'casting a spell' and we aren't suppose to try and argue 'well, they're taking the Magic action, but the spell requires the contribution of a group, so they aren't actually 'casting'.'
You are misreading that. They say that the Reaction also Triggers in this case. That means that this particular moment is an additional Trigger. The statement does nothing to remove the Reaction's original trigger.
Sure, the original trigger remains. But that doesn't have to mean that the original trigger can trigger on the event that the additional trigger responds to.
In essence, what they are establishing is that, yes, the act of being primary caster is essentially one of 'casting a spell' and we aren't suppose to try and argue 'well, they're taking the Magic action, but the spell requires the contribution of a group, so they aren't actually 'casting'.'
Absolutely not. It does not define initiation a Circle spell as casting a spell, if it did it would say so (which it doesn't do). But you are correct on the fact that we don't need to argue about if they are casting or not because the new trigger they defined for us will work anyway.
RAW, to see a creature casting a spell is to see the creature using components.
That's never stated in the 2024 rules or Sage Advice.
RAW changed from 2014 to 2024 and this might be an unintentional change or an intentional change, particularly if they had already considered the inclusion of Circle Magic and intended for the secondary casters to be valid targets if the spell casting was otherwise valid for targeting purposes.
Okay, I'm legitimately curious: How did you get it this wrong?
Literally the only thing that changed between 2014 and 2024 Counterspell's trigger:
2014 - 1 Reaction which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
2024 - 1 Reaction which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components
"you" to "yourself" is a stylistic change, nothing more. "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" modifies "casting" in that sentence, not "spell". It shows that they have to be actively using components of some kind, because guess what? If they aren't, you can't see them casting a spell. The 2014 Sage Advice note:
If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
(Of importance to note: 2014 Subtle Spell didn't remove material components of any kind, unlike 2024 Subtle Spell, hence the clarification about material components here.)
They specifically point out that a spell with Subtle Spell (which has no verbal or somatic components, as per Subtle Spell) without material components is impossible to perceive. This isn't actually written anywhere else: It's the only thing written anywhere that shows that a lack of components makes a spell imperceptible. It's otherwise meant to simply be understood that no components leaves nothing to see. (No, Subtle Spell doesn't say it. No, nothing in the PHB under spellcasting says it.)
So unless you can show exactly where they've written in a change to the fact that no components = nothing to perceive = nothing to Counterspell, your entire argument falls apart.
In practice, I have trouble coming up with a scenario where counterspelling a circle spell is at all likely, because you have to be within 90' and have clear line of sight on the caster, and if you were already in position... all you have to do is break someone's concentration, either with bulk damage or incapacitating status effects, and that's much easier than getting off a counterspell.
However, if we're discussing the visibility of subtle spellcasting: 2024 doesn't say, and therefore we can just rely on XGTE, because they were never overridden and, as has been stated many times, 2024 edition is still 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If it said that any spell casting would be valid.
Important Note: It does NOT say "when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself provide Verbal, Somatic, or Material components while casting a spell." That would have an entirely different meaning that what is in the spell description and which is more aligned with your interpretation. The wording in the spell is compatible with both your reading and mine.
They are clearly described as having actions under Casting a Circle Spell. The Circle Magic section creates an exception to the normal spellcasting rules so the fact that the secondary spell casters don't know the spell and sometimes don't expend a slot doesn't matter and in no way invalidates them as casters. The Circle Magic section lists them as casters in the section on casting a Circle spell. That is an exception that overrides any restrictions from the general rules on spell casting.
There is no "we will allow you to sit on the Circle but do not grant you the rank of Caster". The casters of the spell are the primary caster and one or more secondary casters. The primary caster initiates the spell casting and everyone participates in the casting.
That's never stated in the 2024 rules or Sage Advice.
RAW changed from 2014 to 2024 and this might be an unintentional change or an intentional change, particularly if they had already considered the inclusion of Circle Magic and intended for the secondary casters to be valid targets if the spell casting was otherwise valid for targeting purposes.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I obviously disagree with several of your assertions but I want to address this in particular. Nothing being said about the secondary casters says and indicates, well, nothing.
First, I hope the clause is in error because it creates some odd interactions with reactions other than Counterspell. Second, the action initates casting which is not actually casting. Therefore, the spell is not being cast until after the Magic action has been taken. Counterspell is normally used as a reaction to a single Magic action to cast a spell but if a spell has a longer cast time, are you only able to Counterspell it during the first Magic action, throughout, or at the end? I read seeing a creature casting (present tense) a spell to mean that the caster is a valid target throughout. In your reading, if I was Circle casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, after the first action, I could not be Counterspelled. However, if it was not a Circle spell, wouldn't you allow it to be Counterspelled at any point in the casting?
If Counterspell can counter a spell throughout the casting, then any valid casters (whether you believe that is only the primary caster, also the secondary casters, or no individual creature) can be Counterspelled throughout the Circle spell's casting which starts after the magic action to initiate the casting until the spell is completed per Completing the Casting. The clause in Initiating a Circle Spell gives and additional opportunity during an action that the authors do not appear to be consider part of the spell's casting.
The clause does not say if a reaction would trigger when a creature casts a spell, it only triggers when you take this action. It says "it also triggers when you take this action". While the spell is in the process of being cast, it does not need anything validating it as a valid target of Counterspell.
Regardless of your thoughts on secondary casters, if the Circle spell is not made subtle, at the very least, the primary caster is a valid target for Counterspell when they take the Magic action to initiate casting the spell and any point after that until the spell completes. Even if you do not think secondary casters are valid targets, it could be a reaction taken on one of the secondary caster's turns before the spell completes. (A Halfling initiates casting a Fireball. A Goliath contributes to the spell and then moves revealing the Halfling primary caster holding the biggest ball of bat poop that you have ever seen. You Counterspell the Halfling.)
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
How do you see them casting if they don't use components?
Literally the only thing Subtle Spell does is let you not use components. ie, not using components makes it impossible to tell you're casting a spell.
No components: they say no words, make no motions, and use no items. They just stand there. (ie, you can be a secondary caster while silenced and hog-tied).
Ask Jeremy Crawford or whomever answers Sage Advice. I don't care if wisps of magic energy extend from the secondary casters to the forming spell (like in the Red Wizard image) or if they are invisible as fellow casters. I don't really care. What I want more than to be proven right is to get an official answer in Sage Advice. I have already put together a wish list of clarifications.
However, 2024 RAW does not define how you see a caster casting. It never defines how loud you have to be for verbal components. It never defines how showy somatic components are. It never defines what you generally do with material components (some spells do describe what you do). All it says is that you must see a creature, the creature must be casting a spell, and the spell must be cast with verbal, somatic, and material components.
You can, RAW, fiddle with bat poop in your pocket under your cloak and you will visibly casting a spell that can be identified as Fireball. Don't tell me that makes more sense than secondary casters being visible casting while the primary caster is responsible for the spell's components.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
First off, let me say that I get where you are coming from. I fully agree that it feels like you should be able to Counterspell the secondary casters. RAW, however, states a very specific trigger for the Reaction to cast Counterspell: "[W]hen you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components."
Now, I will agree that there is an excellent argument to be made for allowing Counterspell after the primary caster has begun the spell (and by that I don't mean instantly after the take the Magic Action). The precise wording of the trigger is 'casting' and not 'casts'. That answers both the question about using Counterspell on spells that have a casting time of 1 minute or longer as well as using it on other Turns (Turns, not Rounds) after the primary caster began. Assuming the spell has a V, S, and/or M Component, they are 'casting' up until the spell is launched.
Ordinarily, with a spell that takes 1 Minute or longer to cast it is pretty clear someone is casting the entire time. Spells that have a Casting Time of 1 Action launch immediately after the action, so after that the character is no longer 'casting'. The problem is that the primary caster appears to be in a position that only exists because the designers messed something up; they created the undefined realm of a spell that has a casting time of greater than 1 Action, but less than 1 minute. However, we know the primary caster triggered the possibility of Counterspell right when they started, which means they are being treated at that moment as 'casting', so it seems to make sense that they would remain in that state right up to the point where the spell is actually released.
Is that absolute black letter RAW? Probably not, but it is extremely, extremely close, mostly because the funny half-world of 'more than an Action but less than 1 Minute' exists.
However, RAW, the secondary casters still seem to be completely off limits at present because it does not appear that they fulfill the entire triggering requirement; they don't appear to have to use any components.
I completely dislike that idea because it feels like it should be obvious what they are doing (I don't like the idea that Circle Casting can be completely unnoticed while it is occurring), which should make them valid targets for Counterspell, but, RAW neither of those are established (i.e. there is no rule that says they must be obvious, even if they are obvious that is not the RAW Trigger that allows someone to cast Counterspell), so barring some sort of official clarification that is where we are at.
Now, with that said, I whole heartedly support people making houserules to deal with the situation until such clarification occurs.
This is the most interesting aspect of this side discussion and it's something that I'm not sure that I've seen discussed anywhere yet when it comes to the mechanics of the Counterspell spell.
Currently, the way that I would rule it is like this:
If an individual spellcaster is casting a spell with a long casting time (casting a spell as a ritual, for example), they must take the Magic action on each of their turns. I would rule that this Magic action can trigger the Reaction to be able to cast the Counterspell spell every time. But you cannot cast Counterspell while they are not taking the Magic action. Meaning, while the ritual spell is being cast, there are multiple triggers that you can react to -- but it is not one long ongoing trigger. So, for example, you cannot cast the Counterspell spell on your own turn in this case because you would not be reacting to anything -- there is no Magic action currently happening that you are "interrupting". Instead, on any of the target creature's turns, while the target creature is taking the Magic action you can cast Counterspell.
The rule for individually casting a spell with a long casting time:
I would rule it the same way for Circle Magic. Circle Magic has a very similar mechanic:
If the Circle Spell that is being cast has a longer casting time of 1 minute or longer, then there are multiple triggers that you could react to, but it's not one long ongoing trigger. Specifically, in this case, I would rule that on any of the primary caster's turns, while that primary caster is taking the Magic action you can cast Counterspell.
No, you must see a creature casting a spell with components. You can't separate those all into separate clauses. You have to see all of those things: the creature, casting, and the components, or there's no trigger.
Edit: Also, it does kind of define some of those things. Casting a spell with verbal components breaks hiding, so it's louder than a whisper. Casting a spell with somatic (or material) components does not break hiding, so they're not showy.
Because I think the "longer casting time" discussion is intriguing and relevant... how, if at all, would you change the way you rule this if you were not in an initiative situation? It would seem to me that rituals and spells that take 1+ minute to cast are generally NOT cast in combat/initiative situations, so the idea of a turn makes little sense and a round is simply a period of 6 seconds. I also think there are plenty of times when a Circle Spell might be cast in non-initiative situations, and I agree with esampson that however you rule for long-casting-time-spells is how you should rule for Circle Spells.
Narratively (outside of combat) if a character was to walk in on someone that is in the middle of casting a ritual spell, I think that the character just casts Counterspell when he sees that spellcaster casting a spell.
The question is: Does the act of declaring that you are casting Counterspell cause initiative to be rolled before the Counterspell spell is actually cast (even though you are "only" attempting to take a Reaction, not a full action)? Does the act of actually walking in on that ritual cause initiative to be rolled if that spellcaster notices you approaching? These things would have to be situationally handled by the DM, but I think generally it's a yes to both questions, especially in obviously hostile situations. Also, casting Counterspell is pretty much always a hostile act in and of itself.
I feel like Counterspell was written completely forgetting spells can take longer than 1 action to cast.
The Counterspell reaction is triggered when you see a creature that meets the other relevant requirements. It's not when a creature casts a spell, it is when you see it (regardless of how you define that). Since you can take reactions on your turn, including in response to your own actions (Feather Fall could trigger if you fell from your own action), it would be valid to trigger Counterspell when you walk into a room and perceive a qualifying spell being cast on your turn. The casting is not paused between the caster's (or casters') turns.
I don't think Reactions can or should be restricted to just actions.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No. Just seeing a creature is not enough to trigger your Reaction for Counterspell. You must actually see a creature perform a specific activity. Again, it's not "when you see a creature that is casting a spell", it's "when you see a creature casting a spell".
As an example, suppose the rule stated: ". . . when you see a Dwarf attacking a Giant Spider with an axe". By far the best interpretation of this is to picture a Dwarf that is holding an axe and is using that axe by swinging it at the unarmed Giant Spider in an attempt to strike that Giant Spider with it. We really should not be picturing an unarmed Dwarf punching or kicking a Giant Spider while that Giant Spider is holding an axe. If that second idea was the intent, the statement wouldn't be written that way.
In my opinion, this is just one of the unfortunate consequences of resolving the activities of the game world in a turn-based manner. Narratively, we are encouraged to picture everything within a Round as happening at more or less the same time give or take. But mechanically it all happens in order.
As an example, suppose that narratively an enemy is clearly running across a 500-foot-wide courtyard towards an open door which the enemy has clear motive to enter. You have some sort of Feature that triggers "when you see a creature moving from one location to another". So, any 5 feet of movement would trigger it. On your turn you enter the courtyard and see the running enemy. But how can you really know that the enemy is still running? How can we know that he didn't change his mind right at the end of his last turn after he had moved 30 feet and now, he has decided to remain standing right where he is? The only way that you can actually react to a creature that is moving is to wait until it is that creature's turn and then when that creature actually moves, you react to it.
The same sort of concept applies to the Counterspell trigger. It is even more especially apparent in light of how the Counterspell clarification is worded for Circle Magic. The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature casting a spell". The only time that you can actually be sure that the creature is (still) casting a spell is when they take the Magic action (or a Bonus Action or Reaction) to actually perform the activity of casting it. You react to that activity that is happening during that action. Otherwise, we have the same problem as the running man. The enemy has previously been taking Magic actions in an attempt to cast a Ritual spell. How do we actually know that the previous Magic action that was taken wasn't the last one? Not all spell effects are perceptible. Maybe the spell has already been cast, and we are just a moment too late. Maybe the creature saw us coming and aborted the effort to complete the ritual casting, which makes it an invalid target since he is no longer casting a spell. The only way that we know that the creature is (still) casting the spell is when it takes the next Magic action -- and that's what we interrupt. We respond in reaction to the activity that we witness during that creature's Magic action.
Circle Magic is just an extension of the above mechanic. Every time the primary caster takes the Magic action, it triggers an opportunity to react by casting Counterspell at that primary caster. But in between its Magic actions we cannot really be sure if the casting is still ongoing so we have nothing tangible that we can react to until we witness the next Magic action.
That's how I currently understand the mechanics anyway. I would be interested in seeing a lot more opinions from many other people about that detail.
I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. The issue is that if the casting time is greater than 1 action or you are casting a Circle spell, the "casting a spell" hasn't stopped because your turn ends. It ends after the last secondary caster has taken their last magic action (Circle spell) or you have taken your last magic action if it is a non-Circle spell with a casting time longer than 1 action. During that time, you can potentially see the creature casting a spell and therefore you can react with Counterspell, even if it is not the caster's turn. You are not only casting during your turn. You don't only need to maintain concentration on your turn. It is throughout the casting. It does not matter if mechanically you only take the Magic action on your turn.
Unlike movement, casting a spell with a casting time greater than 1 action explicitly continues past the initial action. It can be interrupted or cancelled, but it has not ended because the initial action has completed.
If the enemy's previous Magic action that was taken was the last one, the casting has been completed and the enemy is no longer casting. The enemy cannot abort casting the spell until their next turn unless they have a reaction that uses Concentration or prevents Concentration. On their turn, they can choose to take the next Magic action (continuing the spell or potentially completing it) or not to (aborting it).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I think the concentration angle is compelling. It's curious that it hasn't seem to come up before, and I'm glad this question on Circle Spells has brought it forth.
As the primary caster, you take the Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell. Until the Circle spell's casting is complete, you must maintain Concentration on the spell. If any caster's Concentration is broken, the spell fails.
The creator can end Concentration at any time (no action required).
Conclusion, a primary caster can abort the casting at any time.
It hasn't come up to any great degree because, as you noted earlier, the spells being discussed aren't combat spells
A DM can certainly construct some kind of ticking clock scenario for a spell, Circle or otherwise, that takes a longer time to cast though, where initiative and tracking turns/rounds would matter. If anything, I'd say the wording on Circle spell is more restrictive on when Counterspell is eligible
You only get one shot to Counterspell (or take any reaction at all that would be triggered by a casting) a Circle spell, and that's on the first turn when the primary caster kicks it off
Miss that initial window, and your only options to disrupt the Circle spell are the usual ones to disrupt Concentration. Those subsequent Magic actions don't provide triggers for a Counterspell
I think a DM would be justified in reverse-engineering a similar rule for 'normal' ritual spells or other spells with longer casting times, but there would be no real RAW support for it that I'm aware of
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I will provide a counter example:
Suppose the rule stated ". . .when you see someone carrying a weapon'. Do you need to wait until their action to see if they really are 'carrying' it?
I disagree with the assessment that you have to wait until the character actually makes an attack roll in your example, because combat is fluid, but I will agree that there is some validity to the argument since 'attacks' are semi-specific moments in a combat. That's a specific, though, and we can set it aside.
Casting a spell, in the context we are talking about, is not semi-specific but is instead a continuous action that occurs over the Casting Time (and in the case of Circle Magic and spells that are a single action that casting time becomes slightly extended). Sure, the primary caster might be able to shut down the spell (I'm not saying they can or they can't, just that the possibility exists), but the triggering person in my example could drop their weapon with almost the exact same amount of ease. However, unless they had readied the action to drop the weapon, by the rules they don't get to do so until it is their turn.
Now, we could get very complicated and split hairs and see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while constructing theoretical situations where we agree that the primary caster has the ability to ready an action to drop the spell, then debate whether the casters Reaction gets to Trigger before the Reaction of the person using Counterspell, but honestly, why bother? If such an improbable situation existed, and if we decide that the primary casters Reaction took precedence, all it would accomplish is saving the person casting Counterspell a spell slot while ensuring the action succeeded. It would be much more in the primary casters best interest to not drop the spell, force their opponent to burn a spell slot, and possibly make their save and continue.
You are misreading that. They say that the Reaction also Triggers in this case. That means that this particular moment is an additional Trigger. The statement does nothing to remove the Reaction's original trigger.
In essence, what they are establishing is that, yes, the act of being primary caster is essentially one of 'casting a spell' and we aren't suppose to try and argue 'well, they're taking the Magic action, but the spell requires the contribution of a group, so they aren't actually 'casting'.'
Sure, the original trigger remains. But that doesn't have to mean that the original trigger can trigger on the event that the additional trigger responds to.
Absolutely not. It does not define initiation a Circle spell as casting a spell, if it did it would say so (which it doesn't do). But you are correct on the fact that we don't need to argue about if they are casting or not because the new trigger they defined for us will work anyway.
Okay, I'm legitimately curious: How did you get it this wrong?
Literally the only thing that changed between 2014 and 2024 Counterspell's trigger:
"you" to "yourself" is a stylistic change, nothing more. "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" modifies "casting" in that sentence, not "spell". It shows that they have to be actively using components of some kind, because guess what? If they aren't, you can't see them casting a spell. The 2014 Sage Advice note:
(Of importance to note: 2014 Subtle Spell didn't remove material components of any kind, unlike 2024 Subtle Spell, hence the clarification about material components here.)
They specifically point out that a spell with Subtle Spell (which has no verbal or somatic components, as per Subtle Spell) without material components is impossible to perceive. This isn't actually written anywhere else: It's the only thing written anywhere that shows that a lack of components makes a spell imperceptible. It's otherwise meant to simply be understood that no components leaves nothing to see. (No, Subtle Spell doesn't say it. No, nothing in the PHB under spellcasting says it.)
So unless you can show exactly where they've written in a change to the fact that no components = nothing to perceive = nothing to Counterspell, your entire argument falls apart.
In practice, I have trouble coming up with a scenario where counterspelling a circle spell is at all likely, because you have to be within 90' and have clear line of sight on the caster, and if you were already in position... all you have to do is break someone's concentration, either with bulk damage or incapacitating status effects, and that's much easier than getting off a counterspell.
However, if we're discussing the visibility of subtle spellcasting: 2024 doesn't say, and therefore we can just rely on XGTE, because they were never overridden and, as has been stated many times, 2024 edition is still 5e.