I believe the question regarding the Counterspelling a Circle Spell cast with Subtle Spell has been largely answered in terms of the primary caster.
The general consensus appears to be that the Subtle Spell prevents the primary caster from being Counterspelled.
Thezzaruz believes that the wording of Circle Spell allows Counterspell to trigger independently of the normal component requirements of Counterspell.
I think this has RAW support but it's tenuous at best.
I do like the idea that a Circle Spell is always obvious though and wouldn't mind this being codified in Sage Advice or an Errata.
Counterspelling a Circle Spell via the secondary casters is disputed.
It is disputed whether the secondary casters are considered casters of the spell.
I don't think a clear consensus has formed.
RAW has multiple readings and RAI is unclear.
If a given Circle Spell casting can be Counterspelled and a if a secondary caster counts as a caster of the spell, they should be a valid target for Counterspell.
Perhaps whether or not a secondary caster is a caster of the Circle spell for effects that depend on casting a spell should be spun off into a separate thread. However, with the brevity of the section, the grammatical evidence may have been exhausted already.
Can a contributing caster use subtle spell for their contribution? If not, they aren't casting a spell.
For that matter, does a contributing caster have any components to start with? The primary caster explicitly provides the components, so it would seem like the secondary casters don't have any, and thus can't trigger counterspell, even if they are 'casting a spell'. (It doesn't matter if they do chant or wave their hands about or whatever, because if they aren't components for the spell, they aren't a trigger for counterspell).
I don't think it's necessary to answer the question 'are secondary casters casting a spell', because afaict, contributing a spell slot involves no components, and is thus not a valid trigger. (I don't own the splat, so if there's a better description of what contributing casters are doing that says they do have components, that's another story. No one has quoted such a thing).
The section you highlighted explicitly says Counterspell only works against a Circle spell if it would also work against a normal spell -- which Subtle (generally) prevents
"If a Reaction would trigger..." Well, in the case of Subtle, it wouldn't
I guess it depends on how you look at it.
I read it as a change of the trigger, i.e because Counterspell triggers on a spell being cast then the trigger would change from the original
* which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components
into something like
* which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself initiate a Circle spell
Edit:
I could well be persuaded that the trigger should look something like this instead
* which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself initiate a Circle spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components
End edit:
While you seems to have read it as a change dependent on the individual situation, i.e if a specific casting of a spell would have triggered Counterspell then it would also be a valid trigger if the spell is cast as a Circle spell.
I'm not especially married to my interpretation, I could well be wrong here. It just seems to me that a re-wording the trigger fits better with how the rules for 5e usually works.
You claimed that the authors were careful not to describe the secondary casters as "casting a spell" and I provided a counterpoint
Your 'counterpoint' literally included the phrase "casting a Circle spell", and you incorrectly claimed 'casting' was not a verb in that phrase
You are incorrectly claiming the verb is "casting". Technically, the verb is "take". "
Look, I understand why you keep getting confused here. English is a messy language. It's hard to learn if you're not a native speaker, and it's hard to explain the rules if you are.
Sentences can have more than one verb. 'Casting' is absolutely being used as a verb in that sentence in the rules.
We've gone far enough down this grammatical rabbit hole though. You're simply wrong on this one.
The primary caster is explicitly described as casting a spell ("You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell.") The section on secondary casters goes out of its way to avoid calling what they do 'casting'.
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)
The primary caster is explicitly described as casting a spell ("You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell.") The section on secondary casters goes out of its way to avoid calling what they do 'casting'.
The verb of the sentence is take. The object of the verb is "a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell."
You take the Magic action. The action is then to perform something. That is the verb phrase following the primary verb of the sentence. Is the verb phrase "to cast a Circle spell"? No. It's not. It's to initiate casting a spell.
If I start running? I am running? No, not yet.
The verb in the second verb phrase is to initiate and the object of that verb is "casting a Circle spell".
The first step of Casting a Circle spell is to initiate the casting. After that, secondary casters "contribute to the spell" (under Secondary Casters) or "participate in the spell's casting" (under NPC Secondary Casters). The final step isn't really a step; it is a change of state. The spell completes when all the required spellcasters have completed the requisite actions. All of which is under "Casting a Circle Spell".
I am not saying your reading is invalid. I am not saying your interpretation is incorrect. I am saying that it is not the only valid reading and that your grammatical analysis is flawed. I am saying that RAI is not as cut and dry as you claim it to be.
While you seems to have read it as a change dependent on the individual situation, i.e if a specific casting of a spell would have triggered Counterspell then it would also be a valid trigger if the spell is cast as a Circle spell.
I'm not especially married to my interpretation, I could well be wrong here. It just seems to me that a re-wording the trigger fits better with how the rules for 5e usually works.
It could also be dependent on whether a spell is being cast in the first Magic action. If a spell is being cast, this could just be reminder text letting you know that a reaction can be triggered. If so, this isn't a change to the trigger and the interaction with Subtle Spell wouldn't be affected. If initiating a Circle spell is not inherently casting a spell, then there should have been more details regarding conditional triggers (such as Counterspell's spell component requirements), either explicitly negating them or explicitly preserving them.
Can a contributing caster use subtle spell for their contribution? If not, they aren't casting a spell.
For that matter, does a contributing caster have any components to start with? The primary caster explicitly provides the components, so it would seem like the secondary casters don't have any, and thus can't trigger counterspell, even if they are 'casting a spell'. (It doesn't matter if they do chant or wave their hands about or whatever, because if they aren't components for the spell, they aren't a trigger for counterspell).
I don't think it's necessary to answer the question 'are secondary casters casting a spell', because afaict, contributing a spell slot involves no components, and is thus not a valid trigger. (I don't own the splat, so if there's a better description of what contributing casters are doing that says they do have components, that's another story. No one has quoted such a thing).
I guess it depends on how you look at it.
I read it as a change of the trigger, i.e because Counterspell triggers on a spell being cast then the trigger would change from the original
into something like
Edit:
I could well be persuaded that the trigger should look something like this instead
End edit:
While you seems to have read it as a change dependent on the individual situation, i.e if a specific casting of a spell would have triggered Counterspell then it would also be a valid trigger if the spell is cast as a Circle spell.
I'm not especially married to my interpretation, I could well be wrong here. It just seems to me that a re-wording the trigger fits better with how the rules for 5e usually works.
Look, I understand why you keep getting confused here. English is a messy language. It's hard to learn if you're not a native speaker, and it's hard to explain the rules if you are.
Sentences can have more than one verb. 'Casting' is absolutely being used as a verb in that sentence in the rules.
We've gone far enough down this grammatical rabbit hole though. You're simply wrong on this one.
The primary caster is explicitly described as casting a spell ("You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell.") The section on secondary casters goes out of its way to avoid calling what they do 'casting'.
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)
The verb of the sentence is take. The object of the verb is "a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell."
You take the Magic action. The action is then to perform something. That is the verb phrase following the primary verb of the sentence. Is the verb phrase "to cast a Circle spell"? No. It's not. It's to initiate casting a spell.
If I start running? I am running? No, not yet.
The verb in the second verb phrase is to initiate and the object of that verb is "casting a Circle spell".
The first step of Casting a Circle spell is to initiate the casting. After that, secondary casters "contribute to the spell" (under Secondary Casters) or "participate in the spell's casting" (under NPC Secondary Casters). The final step isn't really a step; it is a change of state. The spell completes when all the required spellcasters have completed the requisite actions. All of which is under "Casting a Circle Spell".
I am not saying your reading is invalid. I am not saying your interpretation is incorrect. I am saying that it is not the only valid reading and that your grammatical analysis is flawed. I am saying that RAI is not as cut and dry as you claim it to be.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It could also be dependent on whether a spell is being cast in the first Magic action. If a spell is being cast, this could just be reminder text letting you know that a reaction can be triggered. If so, this isn't a change to the trigger and the interaction with Subtle Spell wouldn't be affected. If initiating a Circle spell is not inherently casting a spell, then there should have been more details regarding conditional triggers (such as Counterspell's spell component requirements), either explicitly negating them or explicitly preserving them.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.