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.
Y'all. All this debate, and there's a really simple answer:
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.
This line right here? It's not fluff. It's defining when the reaction is eligible. If they wanted Counterspell to work on a Circle Spell at any time throughout the process, they would have said so. There's no good faith argument that gets around this line: You either counter the initial caster when they start or you lose your window.
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.
Sure it could possibly be such a reminder but if that was the intention then all that sentence would have needed to say is "initiating a Circle spell count as casting a spell" and then all rules interaction would have been clear.
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.
I don't see why it would need to specify any more than it does, the sentence works fine on its own. Remember that the rules generally only say what they do, not what they don't do.
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.
I don't see why it would need to specify any more than it does, the sentence works fine on its own. Remember that the rules generally only say what they do, not what they don't do.
There is sufficient confusion regarding the reaction that a clarification would be helpful.
Y'all. All this debate, and there's a really simple answer:
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.
This line right here? It's not fluff. It's defining when the reaction is eligible. If they wanted Counterspell to work on a Circle Spell at any time throughout the process, they would have said so. There's no good faith argument that gets around this line: You either counter the initial caster when they start or you lose your window.
Counterspell triggers when you see a spell being cast. It doesn't matter if it's the start, end, or middle. If it's a 1 action spell, it will all be in one action. With a Circle spell, in order for that to prevent other "windows" from triggering Counterspell, casting a Circle spell has to be defined as not casting a spell, which is the opposite of what the section does. "A spell cast in this way is known as a Circle spell." However, if you take the position that a Circle spell cannot be counterspelled because it is not casting a spell and therefore needs rules text allowing it to be counterspelled, then it also cannot be affected by Subtle Spell. "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."
The clause says that if a reaction triggers when a spell is cast, it also triggers then and never precludes any other timing for that trigger.
This includes Counterspell.
It also maybe includes Spell Thief (Arcane Trickster 17) depending on whether you believe the spell can include the Arcane Trickster in its area of effect before the spell casting has been completed.
This also includes reactions from your features. You are "a creature" and it does not specify "another creature". So an ally of Order Domain Cleric can take a reaction immediately after the spell due to Voice of Authority.
There are probably other reactions to a spell being cast and I didn't look through monster entries.
Counterspell triggers when you see a spell being cast.
No. Counterspell triggers when you see a spell cast with components.
As far as I can tell, secondary casters have no components (the primary caster provides all components), so they are not valid triggers for counterspell.
Y'all. All this debate, and there's a really simple answer:
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.
This line right here? It's not fluff. It's defining when the reaction is eligible. If they wanted Counterspell to work on a Circle Spell at any time throughout the process, they would have said so. There's no good faith argument that gets around this line: You either counter the initial caster when they start or you lose your window.
Counterspell triggers when you see a spell being cast. It doesn't matter if it's the start, end, or middle. If it's a 1 action spell, it will all be in one action. With a Circle spell, in order for that to prevent other "windows" from triggering Counterspell, casting a Circle spell has to be defined as not casting a spell, which is the opposite of what the section does. "A spell cast in this way is known as a Circle spell." However, if you take the position that a Circle spell cannot be counterspelled because it is not casting a spell and therefore needs rules text allowing it to be counterspelled, then it also cannot be affected by Subtle Spell. "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."
The clause says that if a reaction triggers when a spell is cast, it also triggers then and never precludes any other timing for that trigger.
This includes Counterspell.
It also maybe includes Spell Thief (Arcane Trickster 17) depending on whether you believe the spell can include the Arcane Trickster in its area of effect before the spell casting has been completed.
This also includes reactions from your features. You are "a creature" and it does not specify "another creature". So an ally of Order Domain Cleric can take a reaction immediately after the spell due to Voice of Authority.
There are probably other reactions to a spell being cast and I didn't look through monster entries.
Counterspell triggers only when you see the spell being cast.
-The primary caster is the one providing all components for the spell -Secondary casters use the Magic action to contribute, but there's absolutely nothing about them having to provide verbal, somatic, or material components, as that's all expected of the primary caster (who knows the spell); this means, with no components to detect, there's nothing to counterspell even if they count as actual "casters" of the spell -Nothing about Circle Magic changes the timing of spells; it still only takes the normal amount of time to cast a spell, the only timing change is when the spell is released, which, like Readying an action to cast a spell, isn't considered part of the casting; Counterspell can't be used against the release of the spell if the casting portion is done outside of range, out of sight, or with Subtle Spell or similar features
From this: Counterspell could be used against a Circle spell being cast if it takes longer than an action if it's caught in the middle, but once the casting time is complete, there's no countering; holding the spell while waiting for secondary casters to simply add power to the spell isn't considered to be casting a spell.
Counterspell triggers when you see a spell being cast.
No. Counterspell triggers when you see a spell cast with components.
As far as I can tell, secondary casters have no components (the primary caster provides all components), so they are not valid triggers for counterspell.
I abbreviated the reaction because I thought the components requirement was obvious by now but Counterspell doesn't care who is the primary caster. Only that the spell has the appropriate components, it is within range, and that you see it being cast. If secondary spellcasters are participating in the casting of a spell, then they are valid targets of Counterspell. Everything in the section is regarding casting a Circle spell and nothing excludes the secondary spellcasters as targets.
-The primary caster is the one providing all components for the spell -Secondary casters use the Magic action to contribute, but there's absolutely nothing about them having to provide verbal, somatic, or material components, as that's all expected of the primary caster (who knows the spell); this means, with no components to detect, there's nothing to counterspell even if they count as actual "casters" of the spell -Nothing about Circle Magic changes the timing of spells; it still only takes the normal amount of time to cast a spell, the only timing change is when the spell is released, which, like Readying an action to cast a spell, isn't considered part of the casting; Counterspell can't be used against the release of the spell if the casting portion is done outside of range, out of sight, or with Subtle Spell or similar features
The primary caster is providing all of the spell components.
The secondary casters are participating the spell casting and the spell has or does not have spell components. It doesn't matter if they provide them or not. Subtle Spell changes the spell so that it is no longer being cast with verbal, somatic, and material components. I may house rule that Circle spells are always obvious and they cannot be modified by metamagic, but that is a subject for a different forum.
No Circle spells are cast with the same timing as the original. All Circle spells take longer to cast than their normal counterparts.
There is no rules basis for casting a Circle spell being in any way, shape, or form like readying an action. That is a construct you have created and is not printed anywhere in the book. The spell completes when the last spellcaster completes their final Magic action, just like when you cast a spell that takes longer than 1 action to cast, such as Alarm.
holding the spell while waiting for secondary casters to simply add power to the spell isn't considered to be casting a spell.
There is no basis for this claim. "Holding a spell" is never mentioned anywhere in the section, only initiating the spell (Magic action), contributing to the spell/participating in the spell's casting (Magic action), and completing the spell (no action). You may be drawing the parallel to readying action for your own understanding but that is not a similarity that in the printed rules and using the comparison as a basis for debating rules interactions is inherently flawed because of that. Nowhere does it say that the primary caster "holds the spell's energy" for the spell.
There are definite oddities to the rules. The clause about reactions when a creature casts a spell also triggering when the primary caster initiates the spell may mean that the reaction from Voice of Command (which normally triggers after you cast a spell) can trigger before a spell is complete. If you cast Foresight as a Circle spell, you might be able to trigger an attack as a reaction due to Voice of Command, regardless of how useful that is.
Additionally, the secondary casters, by RAW, only need to concentrate on the spell casting if the spell takes longer than 1 action. If a spell with 2 secondary spellcasters normally takes 1 action to cast, the secondary spellcasters do not have to concentrate while when casting a spell that normally takes 1 minute, the secondary casters have to maintain concentration until the spell completes. I don't think this is correct. I think that either, secondary spellcasters always need to concentrate until the spell is complete or secondary spellcasters only need to maintain concentration until their last action to participate in the spell's casting.
I was drawing comparisons to the most similar rule in the books when showing similarities to Ready. There are absolutely similarities between them that we can compare to show the design of the system.
As for spellcasting time... If a rule doesn't say the actual casting time is modified, it isn't modified. Nothing within Circle Magic says it changes casting time, only that completing the casting is modified. Therefore, a spell that normally takes 1 action to cast still only takes 1 action, and the rest is just holding its energy while secondary casters contribute to it. The relevant line of text here, along with the lack of anything talking about changing the time to cast:
To cast a Circle spell, follow the usual rules for spellcasting, as described in the Player’s Handbook , as well as the following rules for Circle spells.
There's no argument I could see making sense to argue that secondary casters trigger anything by contributing. It's a Magic action, but it doesn't say they're casting the spell. Since it doesn't say they are, they aren't.
I was drawing comparisons to the most similar rule in the books when showing similarities to Ready. There are absolutely similarities between them that we can compare to show the design of the system.
As for spellcasting time... If a rule doesn't say the actual casting time is modified, it isn't modified. Nothing within Circle Magic says it changes casting time, only that completing the casting is modified. Therefore, a spell that normally takes 1 action to cast still only takes 1 action, and the rest is just holding its energy while secondary casters contribute to it. The relevant line of text here, along with the lack of anything talking about changing the time to cast:
To cast a Circle spell, follow the usual rules for spellcasting, as described in the Player’s Handbook , as well as the following rules for Circle spells.
There's no argument I could see making sense to argue that secondary casters trigger anything by contributing. It's a Magic action, but it doesn't say they're casting the spell. Since it doesn't say they are, they aren't.
The section is "Casting a Circle spell".
It is a technique in which "many spellcasters working together could cast spells".
"...A group of spellcasters collectively channel their magic into a single spell..."
"A Circle spell has one primary caster" but it never says that the primary caster is the one casting the spell or that they are the only one casting the spell.
The primary caster takes "a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell." Again, this does not say the primary caster is the one casting the spell or the only one casting the spell.
The secondary casters "lend their magic to the spell", "contribute to the spell", and "participate in the spell's casting". These additional actions are a part of casting the Circle spell and therefore modify the casting time. Having 3 secondary casters doesn't change 1 action into 4 rounds but it does change it to 4 Magic actions, the last of which may occur on the next round of combat as long as it is before the primary caster's turn.
"Holding energy" is something you are adding to the rules that isn't there. It's fine if you want to run that house rule at your table, but it's not in the section. What is there is "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" That means that there is no holding energy. After the Initiate the Circle spell action, the spell is still being cast until the last Magic action by the last secondary caster. Now, again this is an oddity that this text is not present if the spell's casting time is normally 1 action but I think it should either apply to both or neither (concentration and casting time ending after the last secondary caster's action or after the last primary caster's action, they should specify one).
A Circle spell has one primary caster (“you” in these rules). Unless otherwise specified, you as the primary caster decide the spell’s targets, maintain Concentration if required by the spell’s Duration entry, provide the spell’s components, expend the slot for casting the spell, and decide any of the other options noted in the spell’s description. The spell’s effects originate from you.
Super simple. The primary caster is established. Targeting, Concentration, spell slot, options, and spell origin are all yours, which is all normal for being the person casting a spell. Important to note: All components are provided by the primary caster. This includes verbal and somatic. This sentence establishes that, unless otherwise specified, all the components (which are required to be witnessed in order to Counterspell, as described by the reaction trigger in the Counterspell description) are managed by a single individual.
The rest is as described elsewhere in the thread: Initiating the spell is the timing for Counterspell. If you miss that window, too bad. And if the spell is cast with Subtle Spell and doesn't have expensive components, too bad there too, the Secondary Casters don't trigger it because they aren't specified to be casting the spell, just contributing to it. The word "contributing" can't be assumed to mean they're also casting the spell. And realistically, if they were meant to also be casting it themselves, you'd think they'd have to know the spell. Granted, that's technically speculation, but if you disagree, you have to offer up how you think someone's supposed to cast a spell they don't know (or, in many cases, CAN'T know).
Any argument of "but they're still in the process" doesn't stand up to specified timing in the feature description, period.
. . . secondary casters, by RAW, only need to concentrate on the spell casting if the spell takes longer than 1 action. If a spell with 2 secondary spellcasters normally takes 1 action to cast, the secondary spellcasters do not have to concentrate while when casting a spell that normally takes 1 minute, the secondary casters have to maintain concentration until the spell completes. I don't think this is correct. I think that either, secondary spellcasters always need to concentrate until the spell is complete or secondary spellcasters only need to maintain concentration until their last action to participate in the spell's casting.
This is technically correct (the best kind of correct) but I believe that is because the writer failed to think things through.
As is currently written, a spell with a casting time of 1 round could still take 5 minutes to cast, simply because the 'final secondary caster' does not take the required action to contribute to the spell until that point. Under the RAW the secondary casters do not need to maintain Concentration or even take additional Magic Actions.
The question is, is this by intent? Maybe the secondary casters toss their energy into the spell and are then free to just wander off after that, casting new spells, and otherwise forgetting that they were part of a circle. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that this wasn't the intent.
If you subscribe to the theory that this is the intent, then sure, secondary casters only need to maintain Concentration for spells with an actual Casting Time of one minute or longer. Otherwise, it really feels like they need to maintain Concentration until the spell is released and the author has just worded things very badly (neglecting to take into account that a 1 Action spell might actually take longer than 1 Action to cast when cast as a Circle Magic).
As is currently written, a spell with a casting time of 1 round could still take 5 minutes to cast, simply because the 'final secondary caster' does not take the required action to contribute to the spell until that point. Under the RAW the secondary casters do not need to maintain Concentration or even take additional Magic Actions.
Not at all. A Circle Spell takes the exact same amount of time it takes to cast normally
If it has a casting time of 1 action, there is no option provided to 'hold the spell open' for an indefinite period to allow for additional secondary casters
Completing the Casting
If the spell has a casting time of an action, the Circle spell’s effects occur immediately after the final secondary caster takes the required action to contribute to the spell. You decide which secondary caster is the final one.
The spell would take effect with however many secondaries already contributed, at the end of the round/beginning of the primary caster's next turn -- which is the length of time one action can last
If you want to try to read the absence of a rule into a ruling that somehow changes the casting time of a spell, you're free to do so at your table, but there's no RAW or RAI basis for it
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)
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that. I see nothing in there that mandates that a spell which takes 1 action must be cast by the primary caster's next turn. In fact, by my reading it says quite the opposite, with the primary caster having almost complete freedom in when they chose to cast the spell with one caveat. It can be interpreted that they need a 'trigger' of a secondary caster contributing, so a very valid interpret interpretation is that they do not have absolute freedom, but there is still nothing in the wording that says that such a decision must be made before their next Action.
Now, it is also true that there is nothing that unequivocally states that they can extend the casting time, so I'm not going to claim that your interpretation is clearly invalid and wrong. I can definitely understand your position. I just disagree that it is clearly 'RAW'.
I see nothing in there that mandates that a spell which takes 1 action must be cast by the primary caster's next turn.
If you don't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence, then yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree
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)
Counterspell triggers when you see a spell being cast.
No. Counterspell triggers when you see a spell cast with components.
As far as I can tell, secondary casters have no components (the primary caster provides all components), so they are not valid triggers for counterspell.
I abbreviated the reaction because I thought the components requirement was obvious by now but Counterspell doesn't care who is the primary caster. Only that the spell has the appropriate components, it is within range, and that you see it being cast. If secondary spellcasters are participating in the casting of a spell, then they are valid targets of Counterspell. Everything in the section is regarding casting a Circle spell and nothing excludes the secondary spellcasters as targets.
They're never said to use components. Indeed, the primary caster provides all the components. So they aren't valid targets for counterspell, because even if they're obviously casting a spell, they aren't casting with any components.
It is not enough that they are visibly casting a spell. They must cast with components, and they pretty explicitly do not.
I see nothing in there that mandates that a spell which takes 1 action must be cast by the primary caster's next turn.
If you don't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence, then yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree
Cutting it like that does make it seem contradictory, naturally, but in the entire context where another statement appears (at least to me) to indicate that the possibility exists that the spell could take longer, the contradiction no longer occurs.
Just as easily as you posted your edited snippet I could have posted:
If the spell has a casting time of an action, the Circle spell’s effects occur immediately after the final secondary caster takes the required action to contribute to the spell. You decide which secondary caster is the final one.
The spell would take effect with however many secondaries already contributed, at the end of the round/beginning of the primary caster's next turn. . .
and pointed out the inherent contradiction between "You decide" and "The spell would take effect with however many secondaries already contributed, at the end of the round/beginning of the primary caster's next turn".
However, I'm not going to claim that your position is inherently contradictory because I am going to take the larger context of what you said into account and attempt to actually understand your position. It doesn't mean I agree with it, just that I understand where you are coming from.
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.
Y'all. All this debate, and there's a really simple answer:
This line right here? It's not fluff. It's defining when the reaction is eligible. If they wanted Counterspell to work on a Circle Spell at any time throughout the process, they would have said so. There's no good faith argument that gets around this line: You either counter the initial caster when they start or you lose your window.
Sure it could possibly be such a reminder but if that was the intention then all that sentence would have needed to say is "initiating a Circle spell count as casting a spell" and then all rules interaction would have been clear.
I don't see why it would need to specify any more than it does, the sentence works fine on its own. Remember that the rules generally only say what they do, not what they don't do.
There is sufficient confusion regarding the reaction that a clarification would be helpful.
Counterspell triggers when you see a spell being cast. It doesn't matter if it's the start, end, or middle. If it's a 1 action spell, it will all be in one action. With a Circle spell, in order for that to prevent other "windows" from triggering Counterspell, casting a Circle spell has to be defined as not casting a spell, which is the opposite of what the section does. "A spell cast in this way is known as a Circle spell." However, if you take the position that a Circle spell cannot be counterspelled because it is not casting a spell and therefore needs rules text allowing it to be counterspelled, then it also cannot be affected by Subtle Spell. "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."
The clause says that if a reaction triggers when a spell is cast, it also triggers then and never precludes any other timing for that trigger.
There are probably other reactions to a spell being cast and I didn't look through monster entries.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No. Counterspell triggers when you see a spell cast with components.
As far as I can tell, secondary casters have no components (the primary caster provides all components), so they are not valid triggers for counterspell.
Counterspell triggers only when you see the spell being cast.
-The primary caster is the one providing all components for the spell
-Secondary casters use the Magic action to contribute, but there's absolutely nothing about them having to provide verbal, somatic, or material components, as that's all expected of the primary caster (who knows the spell); this means, with no components to detect, there's nothing to counterspell even if they count as actual "casters" of the spell
-Nothing about Circle Magic changes the timing of spells; it still only takes the normal amount of time to cast a spell, the only timing change is when the spell is released, which, like Readying an action to cast a spell, isn't considered part of the casting; Counterspell can't be used against the release of the spell if the casting portion is done outside of range, out of sight, or with Subtle Spell or similar features
From this: Counterspell could be used against a Circle spell being cast if it takes longer than an action if it's caught in the middle, but once the casting time is complete, there's no countering; holding the spell while waiting for secondary casters to simply add power to the spell isn't considered to be casting a spell.
I abbreviated the reaction because I thought the components requirement was obvious by now but Counterspell doesn't care who is the primary caster. Only that the spell has the appropriate components, it is within range, and that you see it being cast. If secondary spellcasters are participating in the casting of a spell, then they are valid targets of Counterspell. Everything in the section is regarding casting a Circle spell and nothing excludes the secondary spellcasters as targets.
There is no basis for this claim. "Holding a spell" is never mentioned anywhere in the section, only initiating the spell (Magic action), contributing to the spell/participating in the spell's casting (Magic action), and completing the spell (no action). You may be drawing the parallel to readying action for your own understanding but that is not a similarity that in the printed rules and using the comparison as a basis for debating rules interactions is inherently flawed because of that. Nowhere does it say that the primary caster "holds the spell's energy" for the spell.
There are definite oddities to the rules. The clause about reactions when a creature casts a spell also triggering when the primary caster initiates the spell may mean that the reaction from Voice of Command (which normally triggers after you cast a spell) can trigger before a spell is complete. If you cast Foresight as a Circle spell, you might be able to trigger an attack as a reaction due to Voice of Command, regardless of how useful that is.
Additionally, the secondary casters, by RAW, only need to concentrate on the spell casting if the spell takes longer than 1 action. If a spell with 2 secondary spellcasters normally takes 1 action to cast, the secondary spellcasters do not have to concentrate while when casting a spell that normally takes 1 minute, the secondary casters have to maintain concentration until the spell completes. I don't think this is correct. I think that either, secondary spellcasters always need to concentrate until the spell is complete or secondary spellcasters only need to maintain concentration until their last action to participate in the spell's casting.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I was drawing comparisons to the most similar rule in the books when showing similarities to Ready. There are absolutely similarities between them that we can compare to show the design of the system.
As for spellcasting time... If a rule doesn't say the actual casting time is modified, it isn't modified. Nothing within Circle Magic says it changes casting time, only that completing the casting is modified. Therefore, a spell that normally takes 1 action to cast still only takes 1 action, and the rest is just holding its energy while secondary casters contribute to it. The relevant line of text here, along with the lack of anything talking about changing the time to cast:
There's no argument I could see making sense to argue that secondary casters trigger anything by contributing. It's a Magic action, but it doesn't say they're casting the spell. Since it doesn't say they are, they aren't.
"Holding energy" is something you are adding to the rules that isn't there. It's fine if you want to run that house rule at your table, but it's not in the section. What is there is "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" That means that there is no holding energy. After the Initiate the Circle spell action, the spell is still being cast until the last Magic action by the last secondary caster. Now, again this is an oddity that this text is not present if the spell's casting time is normally 1 action but I think it should either apply to both or neither (concentration and casting time ending after the last secondary caster's action or after the last primary caster's action, they should specify one).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Super simple. The primary caster is established. Targeting, Concentration, spell slot, options, and spell origin are all yours, which is all normal for being the person casting a spell. Important to note: All components are provided by the primary caster. This includes verbal and somatic. This sentence establishes that, unless otherwise specified, all the components (which are required to be witnessed in order to Counterspell, as described by the reaction trigger in the Counterspell description) are managed by a single individual.
The rest is as described elsewhere in the thread: Initiating the spell is the timing for Counterspell. If you miss that window, too bad. And if the spell is cast with Subtle Spell and doesn't have expensive components, too bad there too, the Secondary Casters don't trigger it because they aren't specified to be casting the spell, just contributing to it. The word "contributing" can't be assumed to mean they're also casting the spell. And realistically, if they were meant to also be casting it themselves, you'd think they'd have to know the spell. Granted, that's technically speculation, but if you disagree, you have to offer up how you think someone's supposed to cast a spell they don't know (or, in many cases, CAN'T know).
Any argument of "but they're still in the process" doesn't stand up to specified timing in the feature description, period.
This is technically correct (the best kind of correct) but I believe that is because the writer failed to think things through.
As is currently written, a spell with a casting time of 1 round could still take 5 minutes to cast, simply because the 'final secondary caster' does not take the required action to contribute to the spell until that point. Under the RAW the secondary casters do not need to maintain Concentration or even take additional Magic Actions.
The question is, is this by intent? Maybe the secondary casters toss their energy into the spell and are then free to just wander off after that, casting new spells, and otherwise forgetting that they were part of a circle. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that this wasn't the intent.
If you subscribe to the theory that this is the intent, then sure, secondary casters only need to maintain Concentration for spells with an actual Casting Time of one minute or longer. Otherwise, it really feels like they need to maintain Concentration until the spell is released and the author has just worded things very badly (neglecting to take into account that a 1 Action spell might actually take longer than 1 Action to cast when cast as a Circle Magic).
Not at all. A Circle Spell takes the exact same amount of time it takes to cast normally
If it has a casting time of 1 action, there is no option provided to 'hold the spell open' for an indefinite period to allow for additional secondary casters
The spell would take effect with however many secondaries already contributed, at the end of the round/beginning of the primary caster's next turn -- which is the length of time one action can last
If you want to try to read the absence of a rule into a ruling that somehow changes the casting time of a spell, you're free to do so at your table, but there's no RAW or RAI basis for it
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 think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that. I see nothing in there that mandates that a spell which takes 1 action must be cast by the primary caster's next turn. In fact, by my reading it says quite the opposite, with the primary caster having almost complete freedom in when they chose to cast the spell with one caveat. It can be interpreted that they need a 'trigger' of a secondary caster contributing, so a very valid interpret interpretation is that they do not have absolute freedom, but there is still nothing in the wording that says that such a decision must be made before their next Action.
Now, it is also true that there is nothing that unequivocally states that they can extend the casting time, so I'm not going to claim that your interpretation is clearly invalid and wrong. I can definitely understand your position. I just disagree that it is clearly 'RAW'.
If you don't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence, then yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree
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)
They're never said to use components. Indeed, the primary caster provides all the components. So they aren't valid targets for counterspell, because even if they're obviously casting a spell, they aren't casting with any components.
It is not enough that they are visibly casting a spell. They must cast with components, and they pretty explicitly do not.
Cutting it like that does make it seem contradictory, naturally, but in the entire context where another statement appears (at least to me) to indicate that the possibility exists that the spell could take longer, the contradiction no longer occurs.
Just as easily as you posted your edited snippet I could have posted:
and pointed out the inherent contradiction between "You decide" and "The spell would take effect with however many secondaries already contributed, at the end of the round/beginning of the primary caster's next turn".
However, I'm not going to claim that your position is inherently contradictory because I am going to take the larger context of what you said into account and attempt to actually understand your position. It doesn't mean I agree with it, just that I understand where you are coming from.