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.
If a creature is casting a spell and the spell has Verbal, Somatic, and/or Material components, it is a valid target. You can argue "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" modifies casting and not spell, but there is nothing saying that invalidates the Secondary casters. The spell is still being cast with those components and every caster is a valid target, whether they personally are providing the component or not, or the spell is not being cast with any components and none of the spell's casters are valid targets.
I have already made my position clear that the secondary casters who are participating in the spell's casting are casters of the spell and therefore they would be valid targets, if the Circle spell has not been made Subtle. If you instead subscribe to the position that secondary casters are not casters, they would not be valid targets for that reason, not because of the components of the spell.
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.
Reread the sections on Secondary Casters and Completing the Casting. For 1 action spells, the spell completes after the last secondary caster has taken the magic action to contribute (Completing the Casting). However, the secondary caster can only take the Magic action to participate in the casting before the primary caster's next turn (Secondary Casters).
It's the combination of the two rules. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any effect in official sources but if you can move up the primary caster's initiative or move back a secondary caster's after the casting the Circle spell has started, you could potentially prevent a secondary caster from contributing. The only scenario I can think of this happening would be if you had an exceptionally long casting time and had two combats during it but even then I think the primary caster could ready an action to manipulate the order of casters.
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 secondary casters must contribute before the primary caster's next turn. I assume failure to do so means that the Circle spell fails but resolving the spell with fewer secondary casters is also an option. Given that, in the case of a spell that takes 1 minute or more to cast, if any of the secondary casters fail to maintain concentration, the spell fails, I am inclined to believe that RAI is that failing to contribute to the spell causes the spell to fail. The section also requires the secondary casters to take the magic action and concentrate but does not say that failing to take the Magic action causes the spell to fail. Only calling out that breaking concentration on any caster causes the spell to fail creates an odd implication that failing to contribute doesn't cause the spell to fail (but this may be considered adequately covered by the Secondary Casters section).
My wish list for Sage Advice and Errata (SAnE):
Explicitly defining secondary casters as casters of the spell or not. (Pick one and make it official, I don't care which)
Require that the secondary casters be set when initiating casting the Circle Spell.
Requiring that secondary casters maintain concentration from when they take their first Magic action until the spell completes, for spells of any casting time. Additionally, explicitly state that the spell fails if the secondary casters' concentration is broken before the spell is complete (only a change for spells with a casting time of 1 action).
This also prevents secondary casters from participating in a Circle spell while maintaining a Concentration spell, regardless of the Circle spell's casting time. This creates consistency across the Circle spell castings.
Note that they can ready action to make the spell go off on the primary caster's turn if the spell has a 1 action casting time.
Explicitly state that the spell fails if the secondary casters fail to contribute to the spell in time on any give turn during its casting.
If a creature is casting a spell and the spell has Verbal, Somatic, and/or Material components, it is a valid target. You can argue "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" modifies casting and not spell, but there is nothing saying that invalidates the Secondary casters. The spell is still being cast with those components and every caster is a valid target, whether they personally are providing the component or not, or the spell is not being cast with any components and none of the spell's casters are valid targets.
I have already made my position clear that the secondary casters who are participating in the spell's casting are casters of the spell and therefore they would be valid targets, if the Circle spell has not been made Subtle. If you instead subscribe to the position that secondary casters are not casters, they would not be valid targets for that reason, not because of the components of the spell.
The 2014 Sage Advice Compendium cleared up that the use of components is what you see that triggers Counterspell. The 2024 version of Counterspell has the addition of "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" to avoid having to repost that in the 2024 Sage Advice Compendium, but it's clear that it's meant to function the same. Even if we consider the other casters to be casting the spell rather than just contributing to it, if you don't see them using verbal, somatic, or material components, they aren't a valid Counterspell target.
Explicitly defining secondary casters as casters of the spell or not. (Pick one and make it official, I don't care which)
Require that the secondary casters be set when initiating casting the Circle Spell.
Requiring that secondary casters maintain concentration from when they take their first Magic action until the spell completes, for spells of any casting time. Additionally, explicitly state that the spell fails if the secondary casters' concentration is broken before the spell is complete (only a change for spells with a casting time of 1 action).
This also prevents secondary casters from participating in a Circle spell while maintaining a Concentration spell, regardless of the Circle spell's casting time. This creates consistency across the Circle spell castings.
Note that they can ready action to make the spell go off on the primary caster's turn if the spell has a 1 action casting time.
Explicitly state that the spell fails if the secondary casters fail to contribute to the spell in time on any give turn during its casting.
Bullet point 1 is irrelevant to everything, in all honesty. Bullet points 2, 3, 3a, and 3b are all direct nerfs to Circle Magic, not stated within the section, and shouldn't be included. That's just you trying to make it weaker than intended. Bullet point 4 is a sensible reading of the result of, at least, the primary caster not designating "last secondary" and releasing the spell after one of the secondary casters contributes. But again, requiring pre-designation of secondary casters would make such a ruling an even greater nerf.
At this point, it can be assumed you just hate Circle Magic and want it nerfed into the ground.
If a creature is casting a spell and the spell has Verbal, Somatic, and/or Material components, it is a valid target. You can argue "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" modifies casting and not spell, but there is nothing saying that invalidates the Secondary casters. The spell is still being cast with those components and every caster is a valid target, whether they personally are providing the component or not, or the spell is not being cast with any components and none of the spell's casters are valid targets.
I have already made my position clear that the secondary casters who are participating in the spell's casting are casters of the spell and therefore they would be valid targets, if the Circle spell has not been made Subtle. If you instead subscribe to the position that secondary casters are not casters, they would not be valid targets for that reason, not because of the components of the spell.
The 2014 Sage Advice Compendium cleared up that the use of components is what you see that triggers Counterspell. The 2024 version of Counterspell has the addition of "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" to avoid having to repost that in the 2024 Sage Advice Compendium, but it's clear that it's meant to function the same. Even if we consider the other casters to be casting the spell rather than just contributing to it, if you don't see them using verbal, somatic, or material components, they aren't a valid Counterspell target.
In this case, 2014 Sage Advice is not relevant with the changes to Counterspell in 2024 and the fact that the ruling was not carried over to the 2024 Sage Advice. The 2014 entry answers a question that is no longer a question with the 2024 revision. However, both versions assume a singular caster which is no longer true with Circle spells and should be revisited.
Explicitly defining secondary casters as casters of the spell or not. (Pick one and make it official, I don't care which)
Require that the secondary casters be set when initiating casting the Circle Spell.
Requiring that secondary casters maintain concentration from when they take their first Magic action until the spell completes, for spells of any casting time. Additionally, explicitly state that the spell fails if the secondary casters' concentration is broken before the spell is complete (only a change for spells with a casting time of 1 action).
This also prevents secondary casters from participating in a Circle spell while maintaining a Concentration spell, regardless of the Circle spell's casting time. This creates consistency across the Circle spell castings.
Note that they can ready action to make the spell go off on the primary caster's turn if the spell has a 1 action casting time.
Explicitly state that the spell fails if the secondary casters fail to contribute to the spell in time on any give turn during its casting.
Bullet point 1 is irrelevant to everything, in all honesty. Bullet points 2, 3, 3a, and 3b are all direct nerfs to Circle Magic, not stated within the section, and shouldn't be included. That's just you trying to make it weaker than intended. Bullet point 4 is a sensible reading of the result of, at least, the primary caster not designating "last secondary" and releasing the spell after one of the secondary casters contributes. But again, requiring pre-designation of secondary casters would make such a ruling an even greater nerf.
At this point, it can be assumed you just hate Circle Magic and want it nerfed into the ground.
There is an idiom about making assumptions ...
Bullet point 1 has be contested for what seems like half the thread.
Bullet point 2 is not clear whether is currently a requirement. I feel it is intended to be a requirement. For example, if you are casting Revivify with a 200 GP diamond, you need at least two secondary casters for the Supplant option. You could rule that casting it works as long as two secondary casters contribute in time. I am totally fine with it being explicitly defined as behaving that way but I would prefer that it be explicitly one way or the other.
Bullet point 3b is the current situation regardless of other interpretations debated in this thread. There is no ambiguity. With all the other questions about Circle spells, as a secondary caster you can absolutely ready an action to contribute to the spell. If it is important for a Circle spell to go off on the primary caster's turn (perhaps they go just before the Big Bad), the secondary casters can ready action. This is not a nerf. This is not a change.
Bullet points 3 and 3a are only a change for single action spells. For spells with a casting time of 1 minute or longer, this is already true. I feel that the experience should be consistent. I agree that is a mild nerf to what are probably the most common Circle spells.
If bullet point 4 is a sensible reading of the result, then it and bullet point 2 are not really nerfs. The caster decides which secondary is the last. It's not really a question, the caster does it. Not doing is like casting casting Hold Person and not choosing a target Humanoid. And, choosing which secondary caster is the last at least suggests a predetermined list. Now, you could argue that the predetermined list is list of secondary casters who have contributed so far (still allowing for a dynamic set). That's fine. I think it should be clarified and picked what I thought was a sensible option.
I really like Circle magic and I am excited to use it and see it used as someone who generally plays at least a half-caster (guess what class). I am considering removing the restriction of one Circle option per spell and allowing secondary casters to be divided by options but I would have to think about how to balance that. If I think of a system, I may post it in the House Rules forum. I am a bit fortunate that I play with people who don't abuse the options available. There are no Pun-Puns in my circles so, even if I thought Circle magic was absolutely busted, I wouldn't have an issue allowing it.
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.
If a creature is casting a spell and the spell has Verbal, Somatic, and/or Material components, it is a valid target. You can argue "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" modifies casting and not spell, but there is nothing saying that invalidates the Secondary casters. The spell is still being cast with those components and every caster is a valid target, whether they personally are providing the component or not, or the spell is not being cast with any components and none of the spell's casters are valid targets.
I have already made my position clear that the secondary casters who are participating in the spell's casting are casters of the spell and therefore they would be valid targets, if the Circle spell has not been made Subtle. If you instead subscribe to the position that secondary casters are not casters, they would not be valid targets for that reason, not because of the components of the spell.
My position is it doesn't matter if they are casters of the spell or not. They aren't valid targets because they use no components, and are therefore not casting a spell with components.
As Athanar points out, it's the use of components that triggers counterspell. ie, it's '(casting a spell) with components', not 'casting a (spell with components)'.
And this is obviously true because of how Subtle Spell is worded. Subtle spell doesn't change the spell, it changes how you cast it (ie, the spell still has components). Under your reading, Subtle spell wouldn't stop counterspell either, because the spell still has components, subtle spell just lets you cast it without them. And the same for every other class feature which lets you cast without one or more components - they all let you cast the spell without the components, they don't remove the components from the spell. And it is a RAW fact that Subtle Spell foils counterspell because the reaction trigger isn't met.
There's no way around this. If you believe Subtle Spell foils Counterspell, then secondary casters can't possibly provide the trigger for counterspell. (If you don't believe Subtle Spell foils Counterspell, you're just objectively wrong).
As Athanar points out, it's the use of components that triggers counterspell. ie, it's '(casting a spell) with components', not 'casting a (spell with components)'.
And this is obviously true because of how Subtle Spell is worded. Subtle spell doesn't change the spell, it changes how you cast it (ie, the spell still has components). Under your reading, Subtle spell wouldn't stop counterspell either, because the spell still has components, subtle spell just lets you cast it without them.
Counterspell requires:
A creature casting a spell
The spell is being cast with components (Reading that "with VSM components" modifies the "spell" is valid but so is modifying "casting")
Subtle Spell causes the spell to no longer be cast with components.
You can insert parenthesis willy-nilly if you like but it doesn't change the text of the rules. I don't even know that it changes the interpretation. If you think Subtle Spell doesn't change the spell so a "(spell with components)" is an invalid reading, then I can see that; Subtle Spell obviously counters Counterspell. We seem to agree that "with VSM components" modifies the "casting of a spell" but have reached different conclusions as to whether a spell without Subtle Spell is being cast with V, S, or M components.
My position is that the secondary casters are casting the spell alongside the primary caster and if Subtle Spell is not used, the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components and therefore all casters, primary or secondary, are valid targets.
As Athanar points out, it's the use of components that triggers counterspell. ie, it's '(casting a spell) with components', not 'casting a (spell with components)'.
And this is obviously true because of how Subtle Spell is worded. Subtle spell doesn't change the spell, it changes how you cast it (ie, the spell still has components). Under your reading, Subtle spell wouldn't stop counterspell either, because the spell still has components, subtle spell just lets you cast it without them.
Counterspell requires:
A creature casting a spell
The spell is being cast with components (Reading that "with VSM components" modifies the "spell" is valid but so is modifying "casting")
Subtle Spell causes the spell to no longer be cast with components.
You can insert parenthesis willy-nilly if you like but it doesn't change the text of the rules. I don't even know that it changes the interpretation. If you think Subtle Spell doesn't change the spell so a "(spell with components)" is an invalid reading, then I can see that; Subtle Spell obviously counters Counterspell. We seem to agree that "with VSM components" modifies the "casting of a spell" but have reached different conclusions as to whether a spell without Subtle Spell is being cast with V, S, or M components.
My position is that the secondary casters are casting the spell alongside the primary caster and if Subtle Spell is not used, the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components and therefore all casters, primary or secondary, are valid targets.
There's only two potentially valid readings:
1. '(casting a spell) with components' = 'with components' modifies 'casting'.
2. 'casting a (spell with components)' = 'with components' modifies 'spell'
Subtle Spell says: "When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 Sorcery Point to cast it without any Verbal, Somatic, or Material components..." Note that it doesn't change the spell. The spell still has any VSM components it had before. But your casting doesn't have the components. (ie, 'without VSM' modifies 'cast' and only 'cast' here). It's not that I think subtle spell doesn't change the spell, it's that it doesn't change the spell - it explicitly only changes the casting.
So if your reading of the reaction trigger to Counterspell is #2, then Subtle Spell doesn't foil it, because the spell still has components, even though you cast without them. Since we agree that is wrong, and Subtle Spell foils Counterspell, then #2 can't be the right reading of the reaction. 'With components' must modify 'cast'.
And if secondary casters are casting (assumption granted for the discussion), they're definitionally casting without components, and thus not valid triggers. (ie, it's their casting a spell action that matters, not whatever the primary caster is doing, if a secondary caster is being used as a trigger for Counterspell. That's required by the wording of the Counterspell trigger: "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." You have to see the creature you're reacting to casting with components.)
So if your reading of the reaction trigger to Counterspell is #2, then Subtle Spell doesn't foil it, because the spell still has components, even though you cast without them. Since we agree that is wrong, and Subtle Spell foils Counterspell, then #2 can't be the right reading of the reaction. 'With components' must modify 'cast'.
And if secondary casters are casting (assumption granted for the discussion), they're definitionally casting without components, and thus not valid triggers. (ie, it's their casting a spell action that matters, not whatever the primary caster is doing, if a secondary caster is being used as a trigger for Counterspell. That's required by the wording of the Counterspell trigger: "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." You have to see the creature you're reacting to casting with components.)
If a spell is being cast without Subtle Spell, it is being cast with components. Counterspell does not care if the creature is providing those components. It only cares that this casting of the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components. With single caster spells, that caster must provide the components. In multiple caster scenarios (in this multiple caster scenario), one caster provides the spell components but the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components and this is true for all casters of the spell, whether they provide the components or not.
I've tried to quickly skim through the thread to catch up on the discussion, but I believe that the most relevant information was given on the first page of the thread:
It now sounds to me like the authors are saying that neither the Magic action used by the primary caster nor the Magic action used by any secondary caster is actually being used to cast the spell. The casting of the spell doesn't actually happen until the very end at which point it just sort of happens instantaneously such that that part of the process cannot be countered.
Since the primary caster is the one to perform the requirements of the spell components during the moment of the initiating Magic action, it is this activity that can trigger the reaction for Counterspell . . .
If I am understanding the new rules on Circle Magic correctly, the only time that counterspell could be used to stop the action would be during the initial casting by the initiating player. If that player is a sorcerer, could they use subtle spell to prevent the circle magic attempt from being counterspelled? RAW it seems so, but is this as intended?
I think the issue here would be whether Subtle would apply, because the rules for Circle Spells explicitly differentiate it from a normal casting
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.
That said, the rule also refers to it as a "casting" multiple times, which is really all Subtle is looking for
Subtle Spell
Cost: 1 Sorcery Point
When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 Sorcery Point to cast it without any Verbal, Somatic, or Material components, except Material components that are consumed by the spell or that have a cost specified in the spell.
Given this, here is my current hot take on this mechanic:
Subtle Spell (and similarly worded features) CANNOT be applied to Circle Magic.
Here's why:
Normally, one of the things that can be done with the Magic action is that it can be used to cast a spell, among other possibilities.
Magic [Action]
When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated.
The rules for Circle Magic create an entirely new activity that can be performed by taking the Magic action -- "Initiating a Circle Spell" and also "Contribute to a Circle Spell". So now, instead of there being three different things that you can do when you take the Magic action, there are five:
-- You cast a spell (PHB)
-- You use a feature that requires a Magic action to be activated (PHB)
-- You use a magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated (PHB)
-- You initiate a Circle Spell (Circle Spell Rules)
-- You contribute to a Circle Spell (Circle Spell Rules)
In other words, the "primary caster" is NOT casting a spell. Also, the "secondary casters" are NOT casting a spell. These creatures are all taking the Magic action to do something else.
Because of this, Subtle Spell cannot be applied since that feature has a prerequisite which reads: "When you cast a spell . . ."
Similarly, other features such as Quickened Spell and Heightened Spell cannot be applied to Circle Magic either since they also have a prerequisite which reads: "When you cast a spell . . ."
Applying this interpretation solves most of the questions that have been popping up in this thread.
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".
Except there's no contradiction there
If a spell says you can choose a target, is it an 'inherent contradiction' if the thing you want to target is outside the range of the spell?
The casting time is the casting time. Nothing in the rules for Circle Spells says you can modify it, so every decision -- including when you decide the spell is ready to go -- has to be made within that framework. Just like those decisions have to be made with the listed range, duration etc. in mind*
* - Unless you're modifying those things by various means... which now makes me wonder if you could stack, say, the Augment option on a Circle spell with Distant Metamagic
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)
In other words, the "primary caster" is NOT casting a spell. Also, the "secondary casters" are NOT casting a spell. These creatures are all taking the Magic action to do something else.
A spell is cast as a Circle Spell;
Any spell that has a casting time of an action or 1 minute or longer and is cast using a spell slot can be cast as a Circle spell.
In Forgotten Realms: Heroes of Faerûn, you'll find new spells like Doomtide and Spellfire Storm that can be transformed with unique and potent effects when cast as Circle spells.
Casting as a Circle Spell. When cast as a Circle spell ...
In other words, the "primary caster" is NOT casting a spell. Also, the "secondary casters" are NOT casting a spell. These creatures are all taking the Magic action to do something else.
A spell is cast as a Circle Spell;
Any spell that has a casting time of an action or 1 minute or longer and is cast using a spell slot can be cast as a Circle spell.
In Forgotten Realms: Heroes of Faerûn, you'll find new spells like Doomtide and Spellfire Storm that can be transformed with unique and potent effects when cast as Circle spells.
Casting as a Circle Spell. When cast as a Circle spell ...
The Circle Spell rules specify multiple times that the primary caster is casting a spell, even beyond the examples plague provided. For example:
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.
There really shouldn't be any debate at all on that point. And yet somehow, there is
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)
So if your reading of the reaction trigger to Counterspell is #2, then Subtle Spell doesn't foil it, because the spell still has components, even though you cast without them. Since we agree that is wrong, and Subtle Spell foils Counterspell, then #2 can't be the right reading of the reaction. 'With components' must modify 'cast'.
And if secondary casters are casting (assumption granted for the discussion), they're definitionally casting without components, and thus not valid triggers. (ie, it's their casting a spell action that matters, not whatever the primary caster is doing, if a secondary caster is being used as a trigger for Counterspell. That's required by the wording of the Counterspell trigger: "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." You have to see the creature you're reacting to casting with components.)
If a spell is being cast without Subtle Spell, it is being cast with components. Counterspell does not care if the creature is providing those components. It only cares that this casting of the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components. With single caster spells, that caster must provide the components. In multiple caster scenarios (in this multiple caster scenario), one caster provides the spell components but the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components and this is true for all casters of the spell, whether they provide the components or not.
No, Counterspell cares that the triggering creature is casting with components. It says so right in the reaction trigger in 2024: "Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." It must be the creature you see and are using as the trigger for the spell that is casting with components. If the creature they see is not casting with components, that creature is not a valid trigger. (And circle magic is quite specific: the primary caster supplies all components.)
You even concede that it is the casting with components that is key in your first sentence. Well, the reaction specifies the triggering creature you see must be casting with components.
You can't choose to apply 'with components' to the spell in one instance, and the casting in another instance. The same clause has to always be read the same way. And as I demonstrated, if 'casting a spell with components' has 'with components' modifying 'spell', then you can Counterspell a Subtle Spell. As we both agree that is not true, 'with components' must modify 'casting', and thus the creature you see casting must be casting with components.
The Circle Spell is indeed eventually cast. But the primary caster isn't taking a Magic action that casts it, nor is the secondary caster. The particular Magic actions that they are taking are to initiate the casting and to contribute to the casting. This is a different Magic action than the one that is taken by a single spellcaster. It does something different -- it does not cast the spell. Otherwise, the spell would be cast immediately.
In the case of Counterspell, the authors go through a tremendous amount of trouble to specify that the thing that the primary caster is doing is different than what he might be doing when he casts a spell as a single spellcaster. They go out of their way to explicitly declare that Counterspell can be used when this particular Magic action is taken. No other explicit statements are made for features such as Subtle Spell.
The procedure for casting a Circle Spell is different than what you do when you take a Magic action to cast a spell as a single spellcaster. In the case of a Circle Spell:
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.
. . . As an aside -- I think this question was brought up earlier in the thread -- the above wording means that you cannot go back and declare retroactively that a previous secondary caster was the final contributor in order to complete the casting. The decision must be made "immediately" after someone contributes. If you decide that, no, we will wait for more contributors and then for some reason the only other available contributor becomes incapacitated before contributing, the spell will fail even if you've already accumulated several other contributors.
But, going back to this interpretation -- I don't feel too strongly about it.
I can see a valid alternate interpretation that treats the primary caster as being someone who is actually casting the spell in a manner that is similar to what happens when you cast a spell with a longer casting time (casting is delayed but the spell slot is not used if the casting fails). That interpretation seems inferior just because of the particular wording that is used with regard to the Counterspell clarification.
If the correct interpretation of using Counterspell against a single spellcaster is such that it can only be cast while the target spellcaster is in the middle of taking a Magic action (this distinction could come into play for spells with longer casting times), then that would align pretty well with this alternate interpretation for Circle casting, where it can only be Counterspelled during a Magic action that is being taken by the primary caster. I've never seen this interpretation of (normal use) Counterspell offered by anyone, but maybe it's the most correct one.
This ruling does matter here because it directly impacts whether or not the primary caster is allowed to apply features such as Subtle Spell when they "initiate the casting" of a Circle Spell. As for RAI, I personally do not believe that these features are intended to work together and I think that the authors have tried pretty hard to be pretty careful with the language of Circle Magic to differentiate the spellcasting procedure (as the result of a group effort) from a normal spellcasting procedure (performed by an individual), but such a ruling could reasonably go either way.
The Circle Spell is indeed eventually cast. But the primary caster isn't taking a Magic action that casts it, nor is the secondary caster. The particular Magic actions that they are taking are to initiate the casting and to contribute to the casting. This is a different Magic action than the one that is taken by a single spellcaster. It does something different -- it does not cast the spell.
So your position is that, despite the very plain language in the rules that the primary caster is casting the spell, the spell is being cast but somehow no one is actually casting it?
Sure thing, my guy. I will give that argument exactly as much consideration as it deserves
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)
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".
Except there's no contradiction there
If a spell says you can choose a target, is it an 'inherent contradiction' if the thing you want to target is outside the range of the spell?
The casting time is the casting time. Nothing in the rules for Circle Spells says you can modify it, so every decision -- including when you decide the spell is ready to go -- has to be made within that framework. Just like those decisions have to be made with the listed range, duration etc. in mind*
* - Unless you're modifying those things by various means... which now makes me wonder if you could stack, say, the Augment option on a Circle spell with Distant Metamagic
Heh. Now I see your position.
Sure, you can't chose to cast a spell that exceeds the range of the spell, and that does not contradict when it says that the caster choses the target.
Similarly, the primary caster cannot decide that the final secondary caster has taken the appropriate action and the spell is not cast if the casting time is not reached (e.g. they don't get to chose that the final secondary caster has acted after 1 turn if the casting time is 10 minutes).
However, and I think this is the point that you are missing, a casting time of 1 action states that the spell requires the Magic action to cast, not a Magic action (and honestly, even if they said a Magic action English is a messy enough language that that would not be conclusive proof that they were restricting it to a single one). There is nothing to support that it must be a single Magic action. One Magic action is the minimum that it takes to cast a spell.
Just like the caster can chose any target within range, the caster can chose to wait as long as they like as long as the minimum casting time is fulfilled.
If I have missed something and there is specific verbiage which says that you can only spend one Action, please, point it out.
Obviously, there is usually very little point to taking multiple Magic actions when casting a spell with 1 Action, but in the case of Circle Spells there may very well be a point (that being that some secondary casters might not be immediately available).
The Circle Spell is indeed eventually cast. But the primary caster isn't taking a Magic action that casts it, nor is the secondary caster. The particular Magic actions that they are taking are to initiate the casting and to contribute to the casting. This is a different Magic action than the one that is taken by a single spellcaster. It does something different -- it does not cast the spell.
So your position is that, despite the very plain language in the rules that the primary caster is casting the spell, the spell is being cast but somehow no one is actually casting it?
Sure thing, my guy. I will give that argument exactly as much consideration as it deserves
At the risk of getting this wrong, I believe what up2ng is saying is that the timing of the casting is what's at debate. The spell isn't actually "cast" until the last secondary Magic action is taken to fulfill the requirements. The primary caster is still casting it... just not at initiation (or the subsequent Magic Actions taken by the secondaries).
It's odd, and I don't like it on its face, but I also believe the intent of Circle Casting is to not interact with Metamagic, and this is the cleanest way to get to that intent (that I can think of). Given the carveout for Counterspell happening at initiation, I think it has decent support.
At the risk of getting this wrong, I believe what up2ng is saying is that the timing of the casting is what's at debate. The spell isn't actually "cast" until the last secondary Magic action is taken to fulfill the requirements. The primary caster is still casting it... just not at initiation.
Taken that "Until the Circle spell's casting is complete, you must maintain Concentration on the spell." to me it means casting starts as soon as the Magic action is taken by the primary caster and last all the way through, until complete. At least that's how i understand it.
The Circle Spell is indeed eventually cast. But the primary caster isn't taking a Magic action that casts it, nor is the secondary caster. The particular Magic actions that they are taking are to initiate the casting and to contribute to the casting. This is a different Magic action than the one that is taken by a single spellcaster. It does something different -- it does not cast the spell.
So your position is that, despite the very plain language in the rules that the primary caster is casting the spell, the spell is being cast but somehow no one is actually casting it?
Sure thing, my guy. I will give that argument exactly as much consideration as it deserves
At the risk of getting this wrong, I believe what up2ng is saying is that the timing of the casting is what's at debate. The spell isn't actually "cast" until the last secondary Magic action is taken to fulfill the requirements. The primary caster is still casting it... just not at initiation (or the subsequent Magic Actions taken by the secondaries).
It's odd, and I don't like it on its face, but I also believe the intent of Circle Casting is to not interact with Metamagic, and this is the cleanest way to get to that intent (that I can think of). Given the carveout for Counterspell happening at initiation, I think it has decent support.
The spell doesn't take effect until the primary caster declares it's done, sure. That's very different than saying something like "But the primary caster isn't taking a Magic action that casts it", which just sounds like word salad to me when the Circle Spells rules explicitly say that yes, the primary caster is taking a Magic action to cast it
If a spell -- Circle of otherwise -- takes longer than 1 action to cast, casting then becomes a process. That isn't new, and the same rules still apply to Circle spells
Longer Casting Times
Certain spells—including a spell cast as a Ritual—require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. While you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more, you must take the Magic action on each of your turns, and you must maintain Concentration (see the rules glossary) while you do so. If your Concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. To cast the spell again, you must start over.
The whole process is still "casting a spell" however
As for the Counterspell carveout, to me that seems like it's there to specify that you can't Counterspell (or take any other reaction that triggers when a spell is cast) based on what the secondary casters are doing. Not to try and split some hair between "initiate casting a spell" and "casting a spell" for the primary caster, which wouldn't make any sense at all given that "initiate" simply means "to begin"
The argument "beginning the casting of a spell isn't the same as casting a spell" just seems like nonsense to me, sorry. It'd be like me saying, "I've initiated writing this post", but then denying I was actually writing it while I was in the middle of typing 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)
However, and I think this is the point that you are missing, a casting time of 1 action states that the spell requires the Magic action to cast, not a Magic action (and honestly, even if they said a Magic action English is a messy enough language that that would not be conclusive proof that they were restricting it to a single one). There is nothing to support that it must be a single Magic action. One Magic action is the minimum that it takes to cast a spell.
What? Of course it must be a single Magic action! That's literally what the casting time is telling you. There's no "minimum" here. It's the exact amount needed, no more, no less
Casting Time
Most spells require the Magic action to cast, but some spells require a Bonus Action, a Reaction, or 1 minute or more. A spell’s Casting Time entry specifies which of those is required.
If a spell has a casting time of 10 minutes, that's not a "minimum" either. You can't go to 11 just because you want to get louder squeeze in extra secondary casters
Keep in mind "1 Action" means about six seconds in game time. Mechanically we handle turns sequentially, but in the reality of the game, the primary caster's Magic action is happening within the exact same six-second window as the secondary casters' Magic actions
Please show me the rule allowing you to take multiple Magic actions to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action
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 Circle Spell is indeed eventually cast. But the primary caster isn't taking a Magic action that casts it, nor is the secondary caster. The particular Magic actions that they are taking are to initiate the casting and to contribute to the casting. This is a different Magic action than the one that is taken by a single spellcaster. It does something different -- it does not cast the spell.
So your position is that, despite the very plain language in the rules that the primary caster is casting the spell, the spell is being cast but somehow no one is actually casting it?
Sure thing, my guy. I will give that argument exactly as much consideration as it deserves
At the risk of getting this wrong, I believe what up2ng is saying is that the timing of the casting is what's at debate.
Actually no, I'm saying the other thing.
Think of it this way. In the 2014 rules we used to have an action that was referred to as the "Cast a Spell" action which resulted in casting a spell.
In 2024, the mechanics have changed slightly so that the action that you take is broader. You take the Magic action. Sometimes when you take the Magic action you are performing an activity that results in casting a spell. Sometimes when you take the Magic action you are actually doing something else such as activating a certain magic item.
In the Circle Magic mechanics, the primary caster takes the Magic action to perform a new type of activity that is defined within those rules -- "to initiate casting a Circle spell". This is NOT the same as the "Cast a Spell" action / activity. The main difference is that taking this particular Magic action does NOT result in the casting of a spell. In other words, you might initiate a Circle Spell, but if there are no available secondary casters then your activity definitely will not result in any spell being cast. Instead, your Magic action is contributing one of the prerequisites that is necessary for the spell to be cast.
Let's try a real-world example. Suppose I have a phone bill that needs to be paid. Typically, I might call my phone company and pay my bill, which involves transferring money from my bank account to theirs. However, this month I decide to engage in a totally different activity. Today, when I call my phone company I "initiate the payment of my bill" by scheduling a payment to be made 7 days from now. I have not engaged in any activity that involves transferring money. I have only engaged in a scheduling activity.
Now, suppose that this is a special type of phone bill that can only be paid if three different individuals each contribute a portion of the payment. None of those three individuals are allowed to actually make any payment until everyone else is on board and has also pledged their payment. This month, I go first. I "initiate" the process by scheduling my portion of the payment to be made at some future moment that will occur immediately as soon as the other two individuals have also pledged their contribution. Again, this is not an activity where I am actually transferring any money -- I am just scheduling a future transfer. As soon as everyone involved has contributed their pledge, the "pay the bill" activity then commences automatically. Paying the bill was a group effort. No one individual made the payment -- none were even allowed to make the payment. Instead, everyone involved conducted a different activity -- "initiating" or "contributing to" the prerequisites that were necessary to pay the bill and eventually the bill was paid as soon as all of the prerequisites were met.
So your position is that, despite the very plain language in the rules that the primary caster is casting the spell, the spell is being cast but somehow no one is actually casting it?
Sure thing, my guy. I will give that argument exactly as much consideration as it deserves
And yet, the book never actually says that anyone in particular is casting the spell. It actually goes through a lot of trouble to avoid saying so, and the language that is used in the Counterspell clarification confirms that the Magic action that is taken by the primary caster is not the same as the Magic action that is taken by an individual caster. The Counterspell spell in particular explicitly treats them as being the same for the purpose of interacting with the Counterspell spell, but only because the Circle Magic rules explicitly say so -- not because they actually are the same.
Instead, the book describes the process like this:
Initiating a Circle Spell
You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell.
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 actual casting of the spell is a group effort which doesn't actually happen without everyone involved. No one person is casting the spell -- they either initiate the casting, or they contribute to the casting, and the spell is eventually cast as a result of all prerequisites being met.
This is how I am reading the actual wording as well as my perception of the intent. I don't believe that it is intended for any one caster's class feature to be able to alter the casting of the spell when the spell is being cast as a group, not by an individual, nor should they interact or trigger if such a feature requires that individual to be "casting a spell" as a prerequisite for that feature.
As I said before, it's not a slam dunk, and I acknowledge that other interpretations are reasonable. But the way in which this is ruled does have a pretty big impact on what can actually be done with Circle Magic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a creature is casting a spell and the spell has Verbal, Somatic, and/or Material components, it is a valid target. You can argue "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" modifies casting and not spell, but there is nothing saying that invalidates the Secondary casters. The spell is still being cast with those components and every caster is a valid target, whether they personally are providing the component or not, or the spell is not being cast with any components and none of the spell's casters are valid targets.
I have already made my position clear that the secondary casters who are participating in the spell's casting are casters of the spell and therefore they would be valid targets, if the Circle spell has not been made Subtle. If you instead subscribe to the position that secondary casters are not casters, they would not be valid targets for that reason, not because of the components of the spell.
Reread the sections on Secondary Casters and Completing the Casting. For 1 action spells, the spell completes after the last secondary caster has taken the magic action to contribute (Completing the Casting). However, the secondary caster can only take the Magic action to participate in the casting before the primary caster's next turn (Secondary Casters).
It's the combination of the two rules. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any effect in official sources but if you can move up the primary caster's initiative or move back a secondary caster's after the casting the Circle spell has started, you could potentially prevent a secondary caster from contributing. The only scenario I can think of this happening would be if you had an exceptionally long casting time and had two combats during it but even then I think the primary caster could ready an action to manipulate the order of casters.
The secondary casters must contribute before the primary caster's next turn. I assume failure to do so means that the Circle spell fails but resolving the spell with fewer secondary casters is also an option. Given that, in the case of a spell that takes 1 minute or more to cast, if any of the secondary casters fail to maintain concentration, the spell fails, I am inclined to believe that RAI is that failing to contribute to the spell causes the spell to fail. The section also requires the secondary casters to take the magic action and concentrate but does not say that failing to take the Magic action causes the spell to fail. Only calling out that breaking concentration on any caster causes the spell to fail creates an odd implication that failing to contribute doesn't cause the spell to fail (but this may be considered adequately covered by the Secondary Casters section).
My wish list for Sage Advice and Errata (SAnE):
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The 2014 Sage Advice Compendium cleared up that the use of components is what you see that triggers Counterspell. The 2024 version of Counterspell has the addition of "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" to avoid having to repost that in the 2024 Sage Advice Compendium, but it's clear that it's meant to function the same. Even if we consider the other casters to be casting the spell rather than just contributing to it, if you don't see them using verbal, somatic, or material components, they aren't a valid Counterspell target.
Bullet point 1 is irrelevant to everything, in all honesty.
Bullet points 2, 3, 3a, and 3b are all direct nerfs to Circle Magic, not stated within the section, and shouldn't be included. That's just you trying to make it weaker than intended.
Bullet point 4 is a sensible reading of the result of, at least, the primary caster not designating "last secondary" and releasing the spell after one of the secondary casters contributes. But again, requiring pre-designation of secondary casters would make such a ruling an even greater nerf.
At this point, it can be assumed you just hate Circle Magic and want it nerfed into the ground.
In this case, 2014 Sage Advice is not relevant with the changes to Counterspell in 2024 and the fact that the ruling was not carried over to the 2024 Sage Advice. The 2014 entry answers a question that is no longer a question with the 2024 revision. However, both versions assume a singular caster which is no longer true with Circle spells and should be revisited.
There is an idiom about making assumptions ...
Bullet point 1 has be contested for what seems like half the thread.
Bullet point 2 is not clear whether is currently a requirement. I feel it is intended to be a requirement. For example, if you are casting Revivify with a 200 GP diamond, you need at least two secondary casters for the Supplant option. You could rule that casting it works as long as two secondary casters contribute in time. I am totally fine with it being explicitly defined as behaving that way but I would prefer that it be explicitly one way or the other.
Bullet point 3b is the current situation regardless of other interpretations debated in this thread. There is no ambiguity. With all the other questions about Circle spells, as a secondary caster you can absolutely ready an action to contribute to the spell. If it is important for a Circle spell to go off on the primary caster's turn (perhaps they go just before the Big Bad), the secondary casters can ready action. This is not a nerf. This is not a change.
Bullet points 3 and 3a are only a change for single action spells. For spells with a casting time of 1 minute or longer, this is already true. I feel that the experience should be consistent. I agree that is a mild nerf to what are probably the most common Circle spells.
If bullet point 4 is a sensible reading of the result, then it and bullet point 2 are not really nerfs. The caster decides which secondary is the last. It's not really a question, the caster does it. Not doing is like casting casting Hold Person and not choosing a target Humanoid. And, choosing which secondary caster is the last at least suggests a predetermined list. Now, you could argue that the predetermined list is list of secondary casters who have contributed so far (still allowing for a dynamic set). That's fine. I think it should be clarified and picked what I thought was a sensible option.
I really like Circle magic and I am excited to use it and see it used as someone who generally plays at least a half-caster (guess what class). I am considering removing the restriction of one Circle option per spell and allowing secondary casters to be divided by options but I would have to think about how to balance that. If I think of a system, I may post it in the House Rules forum. I am a bit fortunate that I play with people who don't abuse the options available. There are no Pun-Puns in my circles so, even if I thought Circle magic was absolutely busted, I wouldn't have an issue allowing it.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
My position is it doesn't matter if they are casters of the spell or not. They aren't valid targets because they use no components, and are therefore not casting a spell with components.
As Athanar points out, it's the use of components that triggers counterspell. ie, it's '(casting a spell) with components', not 'casting a (spell with components)'.
And this is obviously true because of how Subtle Spell is worded. Subtle spell doesn't change the spell, it changes how you cast it (ie, the spell still has components). Under your reading, Subtle spell wouldn't stop counterspell either, because the spell still has components, subtle spell just lets you cast it without them. And the same for every other class feature which lets you cast without one or more components - they all let you cast the spell without the components, they don't remove the components from the spell. And it is a RAW fact that Subtle Spell foils counterspell because the reaction trigger isn't met.
There's no way around this. If you believe Subtle Spell foils Counterspell, then secondary casters can't possibly provide the trigger for counterspell. (If you don't believe Subtle Spell foils Counterspell, you're just objectively wrong).
Counterspell requires:
Subtle Spell causes the spell to no longer be cast with components.
You can insert parenthesis willy-nilly if you like but it doesn't change the text of the rules. I don't even know that it changes the interpretation. If you think Subtle Spell doesn't change the spell so a "(spell with components)" is an invalid reading, then I can see that; Subtle Spell obviously counters Counterspell. We seem to agree that "with VSM components" modifies the "casting of a spell" but have reached different conclusions as to whether a spell without Subtle Spell is being cast with V, S, or M components.
My position is that the secondary casters are casting the spell alongside the primary caster and if Subtle Spell is not used, the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components and therefore all casters, primary or secondary, are valid targets.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
There's only two potentially valid readings:
1. '(casting a spell) with components' = 'with components' modifies 'casting'.
2. 'casting a (spell with components)' = 'with components' modifies 'spell'
Subtle Spell says: "When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 Sorcery Point to cast it without any Verbal, Somatic, or Material components..." Note that it doesn't change the spell. The spell still has any VSM components it had before. But your casting doesn't have the components. (ie, 'without VSM' modifies 'cast' and only 'cast' here). It's not that I think subtle spell doesn't change the spell, it's that it doesn't change the spell - it explicitly only changes the casting.
So if your reading of the reaction trigger to Counterspell is #2, then Subtle Spell doesn't foil it, because the spell still has components, even though you cast without them. Since we agree that is wrong, and Subtle Spell foils Counterspell, then #2 can't be the right reading of the reaction. 'With components' must modify 'cast'.
And if secondary casters are casting (assumption granted for the discussion), they're definitionally casting without components, and thus not valid triggers. (ie, it's their casting a spell action that matters, not whatever the primary caster is doing, if a secondary caster is being used as a trigger for Counterspell. That's required by the wording of the Counterspell trigger: "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." You have to see the creature you're reacting to casting with components.)
If a spell is being cast without Subtle Spell, it is being cast with components. Counterspell does not care if the creature is providing those components. It only cares that this casting of the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components. With single caster spells, that caster must provide the components. In multiple caster scenarios (in this multiple caster scenario), one caster provides the spell components but the spell is being cast with V, S, or M components and this is true for all casters of the spell, whether they provide the components or not.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I've tried to quickly skim through the thread to catch up on the discussion, but I believe that the most relevant information was given on the first page of the thread:
and also . . .
Given this, here is my current hot take on this mechanic:
Subtle Spell (and similarly worded features) CANNOT be applied to Circle Magic.
Here's why:
Normally, one of the things that can be done with the Magic action is that it can be used to cast a spell, among other possibilities.
The rules for Circle Magic create an entirely new activity that can be performed by taking the Magic action -- "Initiating a Circle Spell" and also "Contribute to a Circle Spell". So now, instead of there being three different things that you can do when you take the Magic action, there are five:
-- You cast a spell (PHB)
-- You use a feature that requires a Magic action to be activated (PHB)
-- You use a magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated (PHB)
-- You initiate a Circle Spell (Circle Spell Rules)
-- You contribute to a Circle Spell (Circle Spell Rules)
In other words, the "primary caster" is NOT casting a spell. Also, the "secondary casters" are NOT casting a spell. These creatures are all taking the Magic action to do something else.
Because of this, Subtle Spell cannot be applied since that feature has a prerequisite which reads: "When you cast a spell . . ."
Similarly, other features such as Quickened Spell and Heightened Spell cannot be applied to Circle Magic either since they also have a prerequisite which reads: "When you cast a spell . . ."
Applying this interpretation solves most of the questions that have been popping up in this thread.
Except there's no contradiction there
If a spell says you can choose a target, is it an 'inherent contradiction' if the thing you want to target is outside the range of the spell?
The casting time is the casting time. Nothing in the rules for Circle Spells says you can modify it, so every decision -- including when you decide the spell is ready to go -- has to be made within that framework. Just like those decisions have to be made with the listed range, duration etc. in mind*
* - Unless you're modifying those things by various means... which now makes me wonder if you could stack, say, the Augment option on a Circle spell with Distant Metamagic
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)
A spell is cast as a Circle Spell;
The Circle Spell rules specify multiple times that the primary caster is casting a spell, even beyond the examples plague provided. For example:
There really shouldn't be any debate at all on that point. And yet somehow, there is
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)
No, Counterspell cares that the triggering creature is casting with components. It says so right in the reaction trigger in 2024: "Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." It must be the creature you see and are using as the trigger for the spell that is casting with components. If the creature they see is not casting with components, that creature is not a valid trigger. (And circle magic is quite specific: the primary caster supplies all components.)
You even concede that it is the casting with components that is key in your first sentence. Well, the reaction specifies the triggering creature you see must be casting with components.
You can't choose to apply 'with components' to the spell in one instance, and the casting in another instance. The same clause has to always be read the same way. And as I demonstrated, if 'casting a spell with components' has 'with components' modifying 'spell', then you can Counterspell a Subtle Spell. As we both agree that is not true, 'with components' must modify 'casting', and thus the creature you see casting must be casting with components.
The Circle Spell is indeed eventually cast. But the primary caster isn't taking a Magic action that casts it, nor is the secondary caster. The particular Magic actions that they are taking are to initiate the casting and to contribute to the casting. This is a different Magic action than the one that is taken by a single spellcaster. It does something different -- it does not cast the spell. Otherwise, the spell would be cast immediately.
In the case of Counterspell, the authors go through a tremendous amount of trouble to specify that the thing that the primary caster is doing is different than what he might be doing when he casts a spell as a single spellcaster. They go out of their way to explicitly declare that Counterspell can be used when this particular Magic action is taken. No other explicit statements are made for features such as Subtle Spell.
The procedure for casting a Circle Spell is different than what you do when you take a Magic action to cast a spell as a single spellcaster. In the case of a Circle Spell:
. . . As an aside -- I think this question was brought up earlier in the thread -- the above wording means that you cannot go back and declare retroactively that a previous secondary caster was the final contributor in order to complete the casting. The decision must be made "immediately" after someone contributes. If you decide that, no, we will wait for more contributors and then for some reason the only other available contributor becomes incapacitated before contributing, the spell will fail even if you've already accumulated several other contributors.
But, going back to this interpretation -- I don't feel too strongly about it.
I can see a valid alternate interpretation that treats the primary caster as being someone who is actually casting the spell in a manner that is similar to what happens when you cast a spell with a longer casting time (casting is delayed but the spell slot is not used if the casting fails). That interpretation seems inferior just because of the particular wording that is used with regard to the Counterspell clarification.
If the correct interpretation of using Counterspell against a single spellcaster is such that it can only be cast while the target spellcaster is in the middle of taking a Magic action (this distinction could come into play for spells with longer casting times), then that would align pretty well with this alternate interpretation for Circle casting, where it can only be Counterspelled during a Magic action that is being taken by the primary caster. I've never seen this interpretation of (normal use) Counterspell offered by anyone, but maybe it's the most correct one.
This ruling does matter here because it directly impacts whether or not the primary caster is allowed to apply features such as Subtle Spell when they "initiate the casting" of a Circle Spell. As for RAI, I personally do not believe that these features are intended to work together and I think that the authors have tried pretty hard to be pretty careful with the language of Circle Magic to differentiate the spellcasting procedure (as the result of a group effort) from a normal spellcasting procedure (performed by an individual), but such a ruling could reasonably go either way.
So your position is that, despite the very plain language in the rules that the primary caster is casting the spell, the spell is being cast but somehow no one is actually casting it?
Sure thing, my guy. I will give that argument exactly as much consideration as it deserves
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)
Heh. Now I see your position.
Sure, you can't chose to cast a spell that exceeds the range of the spell, and that does not contradict when it says that the caster choses the target.
Similarly, the primary caster cannot decide that the final secondary caster has taken the appropriate action and the spell is not cast if the casting time is not reached (e.g. they don't get to chose that the final secondary caster has acted after 1 turn if the casting time is 10 minutes).
However, and I think this is the point that you are missing, a casting time of 1 action states that the spell requires the Magic action to cast, not a Magic action (and honestly, even if they said a Magic action English is a messy enough language that that would not be conclusive proof that they were restricting it to a single one). There is nothing to support that it must be a single Magic action. One Magic action is the minimum that it takes to cast a spell.
Just like the caster can chose any target within range, the caster can chose to wait as long as they like as long as the minimum casting time is fulfilled.
If I have missed something and there is specific verbiage which says that you can only spend one Action, please, point it out.
Obviously, there is usually very little point to taking multiple Magic actions when casting a spell with 1 Action, but in the case of Circle Spells there may very well be a point (that being that some secondary casters might not be immediately available).
At the risk of getting this wrong, I believe what up2ng is saying is that the timing of the casting is what's at debate. The spell isn't actually "cast" until the last secondary Magic action is taken to fulfill the requirements. The primary caster is still casting it... just not at initiation (or the subsequent Magic Actions taken by the secondaries).
It's odd, and I don't like it on its face, but I also believe the intent of Circle Casting is to not interact with Metamagic, and this is the cleanest way to get to that intent (that I can think of). Given the carveout for Counterspell happening at initiation, I think it has decent support.
Taken that "Until the Circle spell's casting is complete, you must maintain Concentration on the spell." to me it means casting starts as soon as the Magic action is taken by the primary caster and last all the way through, until complete. At least that's how i understand it.
The spell doesn't take effect until the primary caster declares it's done, sure. That's very different than saying something like "But the primary caster isn't taking a Magic action that casts it", which just sounds like word salad to me when the Circle Spells rules explicitly say that yes, the primary caster is taking a Magic action to cast it
If a spell -- Circle of otherwise -- takes longer than 1 action to cast, casting then becomes a process. That isn't new, and the same rules still apply to Circle spells
The whole process is still "casting a spell" however
As for the Counterspell carveout, to me that seems like it's there to specify that you can't Counterspell (or take any other reaction that triggers when a spell is cast) based on what the secondary casters are doing. Not to try and split some hair between "initiate casting a spell" and "casting a spell" for the primary caster, which wouldn't make any sense at all given that "initiate" simply means "to begin"
The argument "beginning the casting of a spell isn't the same as casting a spell" just seems like nonsense to me, sorry. It'd be like me saying, "I've initiated writing this post", but then denying I was actually writing it while I was in the middle of typing 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)
What? Of course it must be a single Magic action! That's literally what the casting time is telling you. There's no "minimum" here. It's the exact amount needed, no more, no less
If a spell has a casting time of 10 minutes, that's not a "minimum" either. You can't go to 11 just because you want to
get loudersqueeze in extra secondary castersKeep in mind "1 Action" means about six seconds in game time. Mechanically we handle turns sequentially, but in the reality of the game, the primary caster's Magic action is happening within the exact same six-second window as the secondary casters' Magic actions
Please show me the rule allowing you to take multiple Magic actions to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action
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)
Actually no, I'm saying the other thing.
Think of it this way. In the 2014 rules we used to have an action that was referred to as the "Cast a Spell" action which resulted in casting a spell.
In 2024, the mechanics have changed slightly so that the action that you take is broader. You take the Magic action. Sometimes when you take the Magic action you are performing an activity that results in casting a spell. Sometimes when you take the Magic action you are actually doing something else such as activating a certain magic item.
In the Circle Magic mechanics, the primary caster takes the Magic action to perform a new type of activity that is defined within those rules -- "to initiate casting a Circle spell". This is NOT the same as the "Cast a Spell" action / activity. The main difference is that taking this particular Magic action does NOT result in the casting of a spell. In other words, you might initiate a Circle Spell, but if there are no available secondary casters then your activity definitely will not result in any spell being cast. Instead, your Magic action is contributing one of the prerequisites that is necessary for the spell to be cast.
Let's try a real-world example. Suppose I have a phone bill that needs to be paid. Typically, I might call my phone company and pay my bill, which involves transferring money from my bank account to theirs. However, this month I decide to engage in a totally different activity. Today, when I call my phone company I "initiate the payment of my bill" by scheduling a payment to be made 7 days from now. I have not engaged in any activity that involves transferring money. I have only engaged in a scheduling activity.
Now, suppose that this is a special type of phone bill that can only be paid if three different individuals each contribute a portion of the payment. None of those three individuals are allowed to actually make any payment until everyone else is on board and has also pledged their payment. This month, I go first. I "initiate" the process by scheduling my portion of the payment to be made at some future moment that will occur immediately as soon as the other two individuals have also pledged their contribution. Again, this is not an activity where I am actually transferring any money -- I am just scheduling a future transfer. As soon as everyone involved has contributed their pledge, the "pay the bill" activity then commences automatically. Paying the bill was a group effort. No one individual made the payment -- none were even allowed to make the payment. Instead, everyone involved conducted a different activity -- "initiating" or "contributing to" the prerequisites that were necessary to pay the bill and eventually the bill was paid as soon as all of the prerequisites were met.
And yet, the book never actually says that anyone in particular is casting the spell. It actually goes through a lot of trouble to avoid saying so, and the language that is used in the Counterspell clarification confirms that the Magic action that is taken by the primary caster is not the same as the Magic action that is taken by an individual caster. The Counterspell spell in particular explicitly treats them as being the same for the purpose of interacting with the Counterspell spell, but only because the Circle Magic rules explicitly say so -- not because they actually are the same.
Instead, the book describes the process like this:
The actual casting of the spell is a group effort which doesn't actually happen without everyone involved. No one person is casting the spell -- they either initiate the casting, or they contribute to the casting, and the spell is eventually cast as a result of all prerequisites being met.
This is how I am reading the actual wording as well as my perception of the intent. I don't believe that it is intended for any one caster's class feature to be able to alter the casting of the spell when the spell is being cast as a group, not by an individual, nor should they interact or trigger if such a feature requires that individual to be "casting a spell" as a prerequisite for that feature.
As I said before, it's not a slam dunk, and I acknowledge that other interpretations are reasonable. But the way in which this is ruled does have a pretty big impact on what can actually be done with Circle Magic.