. . .Counterspell's trigger is that you see a spell being cast. A spell is being cast until the last secondary spellcaster completes their last action (in the case of a spell that takes longer than 1 turn to cast). . .
. . .If you walk in after the circle spell was initiated but before it finishes, you can Counterspell it just fine, as long as it meets the other requirements for Counterspell. . .
I agree with your basic position. The issue is that Subtle can prevent people from seeing that a spell is being cast (by removing Components). You only get the Reaction when a spell with a V, S, and/or M Component is used. If they are not, you don't get to use Counterspell.
But, of course, that was written pre-Circle Magic. The question is, how obvious is it that Circle Magic is in use? Can people tell that the secondary casters are contributing? I know that in my head canon the secondary casters are obviously taking Magic actions, even if it may not be clear what that action is. That's my head canon, though. The actual rules are woefully silent on that subject (and to be clear, I'm a fan of this new mechanic. I just think there's some issues they need to consider and polish in errata). Perhaps they could burn Sorcery points for Subtle Circle Magic? (I'm not implying that the RAW currently support this, merely speculating on future mechanics)
For that matter, can secondary casters even contribute with a lack of cues coming from the primary caster? It seems like it would be rather hard for the circle to coordinate if the secondary casters can't tell what the primary caster is doing, and similarly, it would be really hard for the primary caster to know that everyone is ready to contribute (i.e. they've passed their Initiative point and have taken the appropriate Magic action) if there are no obvious signs from the secondary casters (though there's a greater possibility that the primary caster might be able to tell since they may receive some sort of feedback as people 'plug in').
From an absolutely RAW perspective, it seems like currently there would be no chance to Counterspell a Subtle spell cast with Circle Magic. It doesn't matter if the Casting Time is 1 action or 1 hour. You can only do it when you see someone cast a spell with a V, S, and/or M component, and that isn't happening. Seeing people function as secondary casters for Circle Magic (assuming that you can see that) is not the RAW Trigger and the caster has suppressed the need for a V, and/or S Component (with the Supplant option even offering the possibility of removing any M Components), so they do not activate the Trigger.
However, there seems to be some pretty strong arguments that the current RAW are a bit inadequate. They were not written to take this kind of situation into account.
As a single spellcaster, if you rule Counterspell can be used against your spells with Longer Casting Times, since you're casting and taking the Magic action on each of your turns, I'd say the same spell using Circle Magic could also be counterspelled during the duration of that casting, not just at the start.
This is my thoughts as well, since until the Circle Spell's casting is complete you must maintain Concentration on the spell and the effects occur immediately after the final secondary caster takes the required action to contribute to the spell, during this entire time you should be considered as casting a spell for all intent and purposes, and so any effect that can be triggerred while doing so should apply.
But the Trigger isn't just the casting of the spell. It is 'a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components'. What if those are removed by the use of Subtle Spell (and possibly the Supplant option). That's the real issue.
. . .Counterspell's trigger is that you see a spell being cast. A spell is being cast until the last secondary spellcaster completes their last action (in the case of a spell that takes longer than 1 turn to cast). . .
. . .If you walk in after the circle spell was initiated but before it finishes, you can Counterspell it just fine, as long as it meets the other requirements for Counterspell. . .
I agree with your basic position. The issue is that Subtle can prevent people from seeing that a spell is being cast (by removing Components). You only get the Reaction when a spell with a V, S, and/or M Component is used. If they are not, you don't get to use Counterspell.
Yes, exactly. I was specifically addressing the use of Counterspell independent of Subtle Spell.
But, of course, that was written pre-Circle Magic. The question is, how obvious is it that Circle Magic is in use? Can people tell that the secondary casters are contributing? I know that in my head canon the secondary casters are obviously taking Magic actions, even if it may not be clear what that action is. That's my head canon, though. The actual rules are woefully silent on that subject (and to be clear, I'm a fan of this new mechanic. I just think there's some issues they need to consider and polish in errata). Perhaps they could burn Sorcery points for Subtle Circle Magic? (I'm not implying that the RAW currently support this, merely speculating on future mechanics)
For that matter, can secondary casters even contribute with a lack of cues coming from the primary caster? It seems like it would be rather hard for the circle to coordinate if the secondary casters can't tell what the primary caster is doing, and similarly, it would be really hard for the primary caster to know that everyone is ready to contribute (i.e. they've passed their Initiative point and have taken the appropriate Magic action) if there are no obvious signs from the secondary casters (though there's a greater possibility that the primary caster might be able to tell since they may receive some sort of feedback as people 'plug in').
From an absolutely RAW perspective, it seems like currently there would be no chance to Counterspell a Subtle spell cast with Circle Magic. It doesn't matter if the Casting Time is 1 action or 1 hour. You can only do it when you see someone cast a spell with a V, S, and/or M component, and that isn't happening. Seeing people function as secondary casters for Circle Magic (assuming that you can see that) is not the RAW Trigger and the caster has suppressed the need for a V, and/or S Component (with the Supplant option even offering the possibility of removing any M Components), so they do not activate the Trigger.
However, there seems to be some pretty strong arguments that the current RAW are a bit inadequate. They were not written to take this kind of situation into account.
Even if you see a bunch of people in robes standing in an extremely suspicious way and decide to counterspell, who is your target? I suppose that's a question for casting Counterspell in general. The primary caster takes the magic action to initiate casting the spell but the secondary "casters" take a magic action to "contribute to the spell". Initiating a circle spell, contributing to a circle spell, and completing the casting are all parts of "Casting a Circle Spell". Does that make them valid targets for the Counterspell or can only the primary caster be targeted? I read that as all of them are creatures casting a [circle] spell.
The Subtle Spell interaction, while weird, is pretty straightforward. Logically, it makes sense that you see some suspicious robed people standing in geometric patterns and feel the urge to Counterspell, but mechanically, initiating the spell, contributing to it, and completing are all parts of casting a spell. So the Counterspell reaction condition, in terms of Circle Spells, would be "when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a Circle Spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" and Subtle Spell would remove those components.
That's actually not the exact text of Counterspell. The reaction trigger is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components"
The Circle Spell rules go out of their way to avoid describing a secondary caster as "casting a spell", instead just calling it "contributing" or "lending their magic"
The entire section on Secondary Casters is under the section of Casting a Circle Spell. For the Primary Caster, they take an Magic Action to "initiate casting a Circle Spell". This is not "casting a spell"; the verb is "initiate", not "cast". No one is taking the Magic Action to "cast a spell", per se. It is unclear whether every creature is a creature casting a spell, only the primary caster, or none of them. The callout about Reactions could be a reminder or it could be a necessity specifically because no one is taking the magic action to cast a spell.
I am currently uncertain about secondary casters but lean towards everyone is a caster.
As a single spellcaster, if you rule Counterspell can be used against your spells with Longer Casting Times, since you're casting and taking the Magic action on each of your turns, I'd say the same spell using Circle Magic could also be counterspelled during the duration of that casting, not just at the start.
This is my thoughts as well, since until the Circle Spell's casting is complete you must maintain Concentration on the spell and the effects occur immediately after the final secondary caster takes the required action to contribute to the spell, during this entire time you should be considered as casting a spell for all intent and purposes, and so any effect that can be triggerred while doing so should apply.
But the Trigger isn't just the casting of the spell. It is 'a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components'. What if those are removed by the use of Subtle Spell (and possibly the Supplant option). That's the real issue.
If the spell components are removed, then there's nothing to satisfy Counterspell trigger.
That's actually not the exact text of Counterspell. The reaction trigger is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components"
The Circle Spell rules go out of their way to avoid describing a secondary caster as "casting a spell", instead just calling it "contributing" or "lending their magic"
The entire section on Secondary Casters is under the section of Casting a Circle Spell. For the Primary Caster, they take an Magic Action to "initiate casting a Circle Spell". This is not "casting a spell"; the verb is "initiate", not "cast".
I mean, it literally says 'casting a Circle Spell' there as part of the sentence. It is absolutely 'casting a spell'
If you want to get into the weeds on the grammar, 'initiate casting' is the whole verb phrase, with 'casting' being the present participle, while 'initiate' is what's known as the auxiliary or helping verb to indicate tense
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 am currently uncertain about secondary casters but lean towards everyone is a caster.
My take is that they are referred to as casters because they have to have a class feature that makes them a caster, not because what they are doing during a Circle Spell is active 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)
That's actually not the exact text of Counterspell. The reaction trigger is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components"
The Circle Spell rules go out of their way to avoid describing a secondary caster as "casting a spell", instead just calling it "contributing" or "lending their magic"
The entire section on Secondary Casters is under the section of Casting a Circle Spell. For the Primary Caster, they take an Magic Action to "initiate casting a Circle Spell". This is not "casting a spell"; the verb is "initiate", not "cast".
I mean, it literally says 'casting a Circle Spell' there as part of the sentence. It is absolutely 'casting a spell'
If you want to get into the weeds on the grammar, 'initiate casting' is the whole verb phrase, with 'casting' being the present participle, while 'initiate' is what's known as the auxiliary or helping verb to indicate tense
True, but it does not state that they are using a Verbal or Somatic Component (and they clearly are not using a Material one).
. . .Counterspell's trigger is that you see a spell being cast. A spell is being cast until the last secondary spellcaster completes their last action (in the case of a spell that takes longer than 1 turn to cast). . .
. . .If you walk in after the circle spell was initiated but before it finishes, you can Counterspell it just fine, as long as it meets the other requirements for Counterspell. . .
I agree with your basic position. The issue is that Subtle can prevent people from seeing that a spell is being cast (by removing Components). You only get the Reaction when a spell with a V, S, and/or M Component is used. If they are not, you don't get to use Counterspell.
Yes, exactly. I was specifically addressing the use of Counterspell independent of Subtle Spell.
But, of course, that was written pre-Circle Magic. The question is, how obvious is it that Circle Magic is in use? Can people tell that the secondary casters are contributing? I know that in my head canon the secondary casters are obviously taking Magic actions, even if it may not be clear what that action is. That's my head canon, though. The actual rules are woefully silent on that subject (and to be clear, I'm a fan of this new mechanic. I just think there's some issues they need to consider and polish in errata). Perhaps they could burn Sorcery points for Subtle Circle Magic? (I'm not implying that the RAW currently support this, merely speculating on future mechanics)
For that matter, can secondary casters even contribute with a lack of cues coming from the primary caster? It seems like it would be rather hard for the circle to coordinate if the secondary casters can't tell what the primary caster is doing, and similarly, it would be really hard for the primary caster to know that everyone is ready to contribute (i.e. they've passed their Initiative point and have taken the appropriate Magic action) if there are no obvious signs from the secondary casters (though there's a greater possibility that the primary caster might be able to tell since they may receive some sort of feedback as people 'plug in').
From an absolutely RAW perspective, it seems like currently there would be no chance to Counterspell a Subtle spell cast with Circle Magic. It doesn't matter if the Casting Time is 1 action or 1 hour. You can only do it when you see someone cast a spell with a V, S, and/or M component, and that isn't happening. Seeing people function as secondary casters for Circle Magic (assuming that you can see that) is not the RAW Trigger and the caster has suppressed the need for a V, and/or S Component (with the Supplant option even offering the possibility of removing any M Components), so they do not activate the Trigger.
However, there seems to be some pretty strong arguments that the current RAW are a bit inadequate. They were not written to take this kind of situation into account.
Even if you see a bunch of people in robes standing in an extremely suspicious way and decide to counterspell, who is your target? I suppose that's a question for casting Counterspell in general. The primary caster takes the magic action to initiate casting the spell but the secondary "casters" take a magic action to "contribute to the spell". Initiating a circle spell, contributing to a circle spell, and completing the casting are all parts of "Casting a Circle Spell". Does that make them valid targets for the Counterspell or can only the primary caster be targeted? I read that as all of them are creatures casting a [circle] spell.
The Subtle Spell interaction, while weird, is pretty straightforward. Logically, it makes sense that you see some suspicious robed people standing in geometric patterns and feel the urge to Counterspell, but mechanically, initiating the spell, contributing to it, and completing are all parts of casting a spell. So the Counterspell reaction condition, in terms of Circle Spells, would be "when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a Circle Spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" and Subtle Spell would remove those components.
I think that's my point about lack of information. We aren't even told they have to stand in a suspicious geometric pattern. It is currently possible to interpret the RAW to say that you could have a dozen people scattered randomly through a tavern, nursing their drinks, and all of a sudden a massive Firestorm pops off because the primary caster used Subtle Spell and there's nothing that says it is possible to tell that the secondary casters are doing anything.
Following everyone’s general logic, I’d agree you couldn’t counterspell a primary caster using subtle spell. But I’d also say the secondary caster is doing something that makes it clear they are a part of circle casting. (It exists on the world. People who can counterspell will know it when they see it.) So I’d say you could counterspell the secondary caster. However, this would not disrupt the spell, it would basically knock that secondary caster out of the circle. So if there were meant to be 2 secondary casters, now there’s only 1. At least, that’s how I’d rule it.
Also, I’ll add I don’t know that the devs need to give much more detail. It says in the description that circles will be most often used out of combat, and I have to agree. In a fight, the bard isn’t going to spend their action helping make the wizard’s fireball a little bigger. For one, that’s a pretty bad use of action economy; they’ll be much more effective each doing their own thing. For two, that just really seems unfun. If I’m the bard player, I want to do something on my turn besides saying, “now her lightning bolt is wider.”
About the only one that might be useful in combat is the one splitting up concentration. And even then, it would mean the secondary casters can’t maintain their own concentration spells, which is a pretty steep price to pay. Can I imagine situations where it would be worth it? Absolutely. Will those situations come up more than once or twice in a campaign? Unlikely.
So, I think the whole question is really academic. I’m betting the times circle casting is used in combat, or generally around someone who might be trying to counterspell, will be very, very rare.
That's actually not the exact text of Counterspell. The reaction trigger is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components"
The Circle Spell rules go out of their way to avoid describing a secondary caster as "casting a spell", instead just calling it "contributing" or "lending their magic"
The entire section on Secondary Casters is under the section of Casting a Circle Spell. For the Primary Caster, they take an Magic Action to "initiate casting a Circle Spell". This is not "casting a spell"; the verb is "initiate", not "cast".
I mean, it literally says 'casting a Circle Spell' there as part of the sentence. It is absolutely 'casting a spell'
If you want to get into the weeds on the grammar, 'initiate casting' is the whole verb phrase, with 'casting' being the present participle, while 'initiate' is what's known as the auxiliary or helping verb to indicate tense
True, but it does not state that they are using a Verbal or Somatic Component (and they clearly are not using a Material one).
Yeah, I was just going full grammar nerd there on the idea that 'cast' wasn't a verb in that sentence
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)
Now this is absolutely not a RAW position, but much more one for RAI:
It seems to me that Circle Magic is meant to fulfill a certain thematic spot, that being the witches gathered 'round the cauldron, the circle of wizards with their apprentices channeling power to the archmage in the center, the five keepers of the sacred spell enacting it while the enormous sky beam forms overhead (none of the current spells are only castable through Circle Magic or require all contributors to know the spell, but that doesn't rule it out).
Circle Magic is not intended to be subtle or a way for a bunch of people to secretly juice up a spell, at least while other people can see them (gathering together in the sewers to cast their dark ritual is an entirely different ball of worm).
That said, I would posit that at the absolute very least Counterspell can be used against it, regardless of components involved. A sorcerer could use Subtle Spell to deal with issues like not being able to speak or move, but the visual feedback of energy flowing from the secondary casters to the primary caster should become a valid Trigger. The reason it does not currently exist as a valid trigger is only because Circle Magic did not exist when Counterspell was initially written (and the authors for Circle Magic didn't think to include rules updating Counterspell).
As I said, though, this is definitely a 'RAI', or even more likely 'RAITAI' (Rules as I Think are Intended) rather than RAW and, barring clarification, should carry scarcely more weight than a houserule.
The reason it does not currently exist as a valid trigger is only because Circle Magic did not exist when Counterspell was initially written (and the authors for Circle Magic didn't think to include rules updating Counterspell).
But they did include such a thing didn't they.
This is from the Circle Spell feature (as posted previously).
Initiating a Circle Spell
You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell. When you do so, choose which Circle casting option (see "Circle Casting Options" below) you’re using for this casting; you must also meet any of the other requirements described in that option’s text. Until the Circle spell’s casting is complete (see below), you must maintain Concentration on the spell.
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.
And that last part explicitly gives you a trigger for Counterspell. Nothing more that needs to be updated.
I'd also say that this trigger would be valid even if the caster that initiates the spell uses Subtle Spell.
A sorcerer could use Subtle Spell to deal with issues like not being able to speak or move, but the visual feedback of energy flowing from the secondary casters to the primary caster should become a valid Trigger.
Each to their own but I would not go down that road. You are inventing/adding stuff that the feature doesn't say and that might well create other issues down the line. And as you don't need to add such things I'd stay away from doing so.
That said, I would posit that at the absolute very least Counterspell can be used against it, regardless of components involved.
Counterspell can definitely be used against Circle Spells due to the specific clause in the feature. I'm not sure that I see any RAW case for considering any of the secondary casters as fulfilling the trigger in Counterspell though so I'd say that either you counter the initiating caster or you don't counter it at all.
This is from the Circle Spell feature (as posted previously).
Initiating a Circle Spell
You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell. When you do so, choose which Circle casting option (see "Circle Casting Options" below) you’re using for this casting; you must also meet any of the other requirements described in that option’s text. Until the Circle spell’s casting is complete (see below), you must maintain Concentration on the spell.
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.
And that last part explicitly gives you a trigger for Counterspell. Nothing more that needs to be updated.
I'd also say that this trigger would be valid even if the caster that initiates the spell uses Subtle Spell.
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
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)
This is from the Circle Spell feature (as posted previously).
Initiating a Circle Spell
You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell. When you do so, choose which Circle casting option (see "Circle Casting Options" below) you’re using for this casting; you must also meet any of the other requirements described in that option’s text. Until the Circle spell’s casting is complete (see below), you must maintain Concentration on the spell.
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.
And that last part explicitly gives you a trigger for Counterspell. Nothing more that needs to be updated.
I'd also say that this trigger would be valid even if the caster that initiates the spell uses Subtle Spell.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what is written. Specifically, they say 'If a Reaction would Trigger when a creature casts a spell'. That 'if' is important, because in the case of a Subtle Spell the answer is 'it wouldn't'. If they meant that Counterspell would Trigger even without Verbal, Somatic, and Material Components they need to make that more clear. If we try and assume that we get to drop parts of the Triggering requirement of Counterspell then why are we only dropping the Component requirement? Are you suggesting that people can cast Counterspell even if they can't see the primary caster or the primary caster is more than 60' away?
Now, that might not be what the authors intended. I completely get that. Maybe they do mean that you can Counterspell even if the spell is being cast using Subtle Spell and they aren't making that clear. I am just talking from a standard English grammar perspective.
A sorcerer could use Subtle Spell to deal with issues like not being able to speak or move, but the visual feedback of energy flowing from the secondary casters to the primary caster should become a valid Trigger.
Each to their own but I would not go down that road. You are inventing/adding stuff that the feature doesn't say and that might well create other issues down the line. And as you don't need to add such things I'd stay away from doing so.
That said, I would posit that at the absolute very least Counterspell can be used against it, regardless of components involved.
Counterspell can definitely be used against Circle Spells due to the specific clause in the feature. I'm not sure that I see any RAW case for considering any of the secondary casters as fulfilling the trigger in Counterspell though so I'd say that either you counter the initiating caster or you don't counter it at all.
Unfortunately your interpretation of the ability of Counterspell appears to be flawed, as stated above. That is why I would consider the secondary casters as possibly allowing for Counterspell.
To be clear, I am not advocating that Subtle Spell Circle Magic should work particularly well. That is why I am positing a sort of Homebrew solution. I am merely pointing out that 'RAW' your interpretation seems to be incorrect. (However, if you do use your interpretation then yes, the necessity of being able to Counterspell when secondary casters contribute goes away).
That's actually not the exact text of Counterspell. The reaction trigger is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components"
The Circle Spell rules go out of their way to avoid describing a secondary caster as "casting a spell", instead just calling it "contributing" or "lending their magic"
The entire section on Secondary Casters is under the section of Casting a Circle Spell. For the Primary Caster, they take an Magic Action to "initiate casting a Circle Spell". This is not "casting a spell"; the verb is "initiate", not "cast".
I mean, it literally says 'casting a Circle Spell' there as part of the sentence. It is absolutely 'casting a spell'
If you want to get into the weeds on the grammar, 'initiate casting' is the whole verb phrase, with 'casting' being the present participle, while 'initiate' is what's known as the auxiliary or helping verb to indicate tense
Yes, it says "Casting a Circle Spell" and then breaks it down into "Initiating a Circle Spell", "Secondary Casters", and "Completing the Casting". The primary caster "initiates" the spell. The secondary casters "lend their magic" and "participate". To complete the spell, every caster must maintain concentration and take the magic action or it fails. The only use of Casting a Circle Spell is the beginning and applies to all stages and therefore all casters.
You claimed that the authors were careful not to describe the secondary casters as "casting a spell" and I provided a counterpoint. Now you are saying that I am "getting into the weeds on the grammar". Okay, what do you want, a grammatical analysis of the written word or no? Pick one. You can't make a grammatical argument and then try to say a grammatical counter argument is invalid.
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
If you're going to try and make a grammatical argument, at least know what you're talking about
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)
[...] Yes, it says "Casting a Circle Spell" and then breaks it down into "Initiating a Circle Spell", "Secondary Casters", and "Completing the Casting". The primary caster "initiates" the spell. The secondary casters "lend their magic" and "participate". To complete the spell, every caster must maintain concentration and take the magic action or it fails. The only use of Casting a Circle Spell is the beginning and applies to all stages and therefore all casters. [...]
Just to add to that:
NPC Secondary Casters: Some Circle spells require secondary casters to expend one or more spell slots to participate in the spell's casting. At the DM's discretion, NPCs capable of casting spells—such as spellcasters hired in settlements—can meet this requirement by expending one or more limited uses of any spells of the same level or higher in place of the required spell slots.
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". "You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell". The Magic action allows you to perform a magical action. That action is not to cast a spell; it is to "initiate casting a Circle spell". "Initiate" is the verb of the verb phrase regarding the action you are preforming. Now, normally a spellcaster casting a spell that takes more than an action to cast would technically initiate and complete the spellcasting on their own, but they are not called out as distinct actions or states except as part of the Circle spell rules, as steps of casting a Circle spell. Another step of casting a Circle spell is that Secondary spellcasters use a magic action to participate ... in the casting of a Circle spell.
The only way the primary caster is explicitly described as "casting a Circle spell" is the same way that the secondary casters are: by performing steps in the casting.
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". "
You are way in over your head here. It's OK to just back down
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with your basic position. The issue is that Subtle can prevent people from seeing that a spell is being cast (by removing Components). You only get the Reaction when a spell with a V, S, and/or M Component is used. If they are not, you don't get to use Counterspell.
But, of course, that was written pre-Circle Magic. The question is, how obvious is it that Circle Magic is in use? Can people tell that the secondary casters are contributing? I know that in my head canon the secondary casters are obviously taking Magic actions, even if it may not be clear what that action is. That's my head canon, though. The actual rules are woefully silent on that subject (and to be clear, I'm a fan of this new mechanic. I just think there's some issues they need to consider and polish in errata). Perhaps they could burn Sorcery points for Subtle Circle Magic? (I'm not implying that the RAW currently support this, merely speculating on future mechanics)
For that matter, can secondary casters even contribute with a lack of cues coming from the primary caster? It seems like it would be rather hard for the circle to coordinate if the secondary casters can't tell what the primary caster is doing, and similarly, it would be really hard for the primary caster to know that everyone is ready to contribute (i.e. they've passed their Initiative point and have taken the appropriate Magic action) if there are no obvious signs from the secondary casters (though there's a greater possibility that the primary caster might be able to tell since they may receive some sort of feedback as people 'plug in').
From an absolutely RAW perspective, it seems like currently there would be no chance to Counterspell a Subtle spell cast with Circle Magic. It doesn't matter if the Casting Time is 1 action or 1 hour. You can only do it when you see someone cast a spell with a V, S, and/or M component, and that isn't happening. Seeing people function as secondary casters for Circle Magic (assuming that you can see that) is not the RAW Trigger and the caster has suppressed the need for a V, and/or S Component (with the Supplant option even offering the possibility of removing any M Components), so they do not activate the Trigger.
However, there seems to be some pretty strong arguments that the current RAW are a bit inadequate. They were not written to take this kind of situation into account.
But the Trigger isn't just the casting of the spell. It is 'a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components'. What if those are removed by the use of Subtle Spell (and possibly the Supplant option). That's the real issue.
Yes, exactly. I was specifically addressing the use of Counterspell independent of Subtle Spell.
Even if you see a bunch of people in robes standing in an extremely suspicious way and decide to counterspell, who is your target? I suppose that's a question for casting Counterspell in general. The primary caster takes the magic action to initiate casting the spell but the secondary "casters" take a magic action to "contribute to the spell". Initiating a circle spell, contributing to a circle spell, and completing the casting are all parts of "Casting a Circle Spell". Does that make them valid targets for the Counterspell or can only the primary caster be targeted? I read that as all of them are creatures casting a [circle] spell.
The Subtle Spell interaction, while weird, is pretty straightforward. Logically, it makes sense that you see some suspicious robed people standing in geometric patterns and feel the urge to Counterspell, but mechanically, initiating the spell, contributing to it, and completing are all parts of casting a spell. So the Counterspell reaction condition, in terms of Circle Spells, would be "when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a Circle Spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" and Subtle Spell would remove those components.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The entire section on Secondary Casters is under the section of Casting a Circle Spell. For the Primary Caster, they take an Magic Action to "initiate casting a Circle Spell". This is not "casting a spell"; the verb is "initiate", not "cast". No one is taking the Magic Action to "cast a spell", per se. It is unclear whether every creature is a creature casting a spell, only the primary caster, or none of them. The callout about Reactions could be a reminder or it could be a necessity specifically because no one is taking the magic action to cast a spell.
I am currently uncertain about secondary casters but lean towards everyone is a caster.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
If the spell components are removed, then there's nothing to satisfy Counterspell trigger.
I mean, it literally says 'casting a Circle Spell' there as part of the sentence. It is absolutely 'casting a spell'
If you want to get into the weeds on the grammar, 'initiate casting' is the whole verb phrase, with 'casting' being the present participle, while 'initiate' is what's known as the auxiliary or helping verb to indicate tense
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)
My take is that they are referred to as casters because they have to have a class feature that makes them a caster, not because what they are doing during a Circle Spell is active 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)
True, but it does not state that they are using a Verbal or Somatic Component (and they clearly are not using a Material one).
I think that's my point about lack of information. We aren't even told they have to stand in a suspicious geometric pattern. It is currently possible to interpret the RAW to say that you could have a dozen people scattered randomly through a tavern, nursing their drinks, and all of a sudden a massive Firestorm pops off because the primary caster used Subtle Spell and there's nothing that says it is possible to tell that the secondary casters are doing anything.
Following everyone’s general logic, I’d agree you couldn’t counterspell a primary caster using subtle spell. But I’d also say the secondary caster is doing something that makes it clear they are a part of circle casting. (It exists on the world. People who can counterspell will know it when they see it.) So I’d say you could counterspell the secondary caster. However, this would not disrupt the spell, it would basically knock that secondary caster out of the circle. So if there were meant to be 2 secondary casters, now there’s only 1. At least, that’s how I’d rule it.
Also, I’ll add I don’t know that the devs need to give much more detail. It says in the description that circles will be most often used out of combat, and I have to agree. In a fight, the bard isn’t going to spend their action helping make the wizard’s fireball a little bigger. For one, that’s a pretty bad use of action economy; they’ll be much more effective each doing their own thing. For two, that just really seems unfun. If I’m the bard player, I want to do something on my turn besides saying, “now her lightning bolt is wider.”
About the only one that might be useful in combat is the one splitting up concentration. And even then, it would mean the secondary casters can’t maintain their own concentration spells, which is a pretty steep price to pay. Can I imagine situations where it would be worth it? Absolutely. Will those situations come up more than once or twice in a campaign? Unlikely.
So, I think the whole question is really academic. I’m betting the times circle casting is used in combat, or generally around someone who might be trying to counterspell, will be very, very rare.
Yeah, I was just going full grammar nerd there on the idea that 'cast' wasn't a verb in that sentence
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)
Now this is absolutely not a RAW position, but much more one for RAI:
It seems to me that Circle Magic is meant to fulfill a certain thematic spot, that being the witches gathered 'round the cauldron, the circle of wizards with their apprentices channeling power to the archmage in the center, the five keepers of the sacred spell enacting it while the enormous sky beam forms overhead (none of the current spells are only castable through Circle Magic or require all contributors to know the spell, but that doesn't rule it out).
Circle Magic is not intended to be subtle or a way for a bunch of people to secretly juice up a spell, at least while other people can see them (gathering together in the sewers to cast their dark ritual is an entirely different ball of worm).
That said, I would posit that at the absolute very least Counterspell can be used against it, regardless of components involved. A sorcerer could use Subtle Spell to deal with issues like not being able to speak or move, but the visual feedback of energy flowing from the secondary casters to the primary caster should become a valid Trigger. The reason it does not currently exist as a valid trigger is only because Circle Magic did not exist when Counterspell was initially written (and the authors for Circle Magic didn't think to include rules updating Counterspell).
As I said, though, this is definitely a 'RAI', or even more likely 'RAITAI' (Rules as I Think are Intended) rather than RAW and, barring clarification, should carry scarcely more weight than a houserule.
But they did include such a thing didn't they.
This is from the Circle Spell feature (as posted previously).
And that last part explicitly gives you a trigger for Counterspell. Nothing more that needs to be updated.
I'd also say that this trigger would be valid even if the caster that initiates the spell uses Subtle Spell.
Each to their own but I would not go down that road. You are inventing/adding stuff that the feature doesn't say and that might well create other issues down the line. And as you don't need to add such things I'd stay away from doing so.
Counterspell can definitely be used against Circle Spells due to the specific clause in the feature. I'm not sure that I see any RAW case for considering any of the secondary casters as fulfilling the trigger in Counterspell though so I'd say that either you counter the initiating caster or you don't counter it at all.
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
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)
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what is written. Specifically, they say 'If a Reaction would Trigger when a creature casts a spell'. That 'if' is important, because in the case of a Subtle Spell the answer is 'it wouldn't'. If they meant that Counterspell would Trigger even without Verbal, Somatic, and Material Components they need to make that more clear. If we try and assume that we get to drop parts of the Triggering requirement of Counterspell then why are we only dropping the Component requirement? Are you suggesting that people can cast Counterspell even if they can't see the primary caster or the primary caster is more than 60' away?
Now, that might not be what the authors intended. I completely get that. Maybe they do mean that you can Counterspell even if the spell is being cast using Subtle Spell and they aren't making that clear. I am just talking from a standard English grammar perspective.
Unfortunately your interpretation of the ability of Counterspell appears to be flawed, as stated above. That is why I would consider the secondary casters as possibly allowing for Counterspell.
To be clear, I am not advocating that Subtle Spell Circle Magic should work particularly well. That is why I am positing a sort of Homebrew solution. I am merely pointing out that 'RAW' your interpretation seems to be incorrect. (However, if you do use your interpretation then yes, the necessity of being able to Counterspell when secondary casters contribute goes away).
Yes, it says "Casting a Circle Spell" and then breaks it down into "Initiating a Circle Spell", "Secondary Casters", and "Completing the Casting". The primary caster "initiates" the spell. The secondary casters "lend their magic" and "participate". To complete the spell, every caster must maintain concentration and take the magic action or it fails. The only use of Casting a Circle Spell is the beginning and applies to all stages and therefore all casters.
You claimed that the authors were careful not to describe the secondary casters as "casting a spell" and I provided a counterpoint. Now you are saying that I am "getting into the weeds on the grammar". Okay, what do you want, a grammatical analysis of the written word or no? Pick one. You can't make a grammatical argument and then try to say a grammatical counter argument is invalid.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Your 'counterpoint' literally included the phrase "casting a Circle spell", and you incorrectly claimed 'casting' was not a verb in that phrase
If you're going to try and make a grammatical argument, at least know what you're talking about
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)
Just to add to that:
You are incorrectly claiming the verb is "casting". Technically, the verb is "take". "You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell". The Magic action allows you to perform a magical action. That action is not to cast a spell; it is to "initiate casting a Circle spell". "Initiate" is the verb of the verb phrase regarding the action you are preforming. Now, normally a spellcaster casting a spell that takes more than an action to cast would technically initiate and complete the spellcasting on their own, but they are not called out as distinct actions or states except as part of the Circle spell rules, as steps of casting a Circle spell. Another step of casting a Circle spell is that Secondary spellcasters use a magic action to participate ... in the casting of a Circle spell.
The only way the primary caster is explicitly described as "casting a Circle spell" is the same way that the secondary casters are: by performing steps in the casting.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
You are way in over your head here. It's OK to just back down
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)