I highly encourage folks, what with Thanksgiving coming up in the States and all, to tell your aunt that she didn't really cook the turkey and it was a group effort, because you helped with the stuffing or whatever. Please report back your findings
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)
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.
The primary and secondary casters are creatures presumably and they are casting a spell and that spell is being cast with components. Therefore, the casters (plural) of the spell are valid targets. The reaction never specifies that the creature must be the creature providing the components for the spell being cast with components. It was never an issue until Circle casting. The placement of "with VSM components" is imprecise and multiple interpretations are valid in the context of multiple spellcasters.
It's something I've pointed out before: Counterspell's ability to be cast at all is dependent on seeing components in use. If you don't see components in use, you don't see a person casting a spell. So even if we agree that everyone involved is considered to be casting the spell, you don't see the spell being cast, and the secondary casters aren't valid targets for Counterspell no matter what.
Counterspell's ability to be cast requires seeing a creature casting a spell and for the spell to be cast with spell components. RAW does not require that any particular spell caster provide the spell components except that pre Circle Magic, there was only one caster to consider. Now that Circle Magic allows for multiple casters, Counterspell and Circle Magic never specify which of the spell's casters are valid or invalid targets.
If they aren't using any verbal, somatic, or material components (which we KNOW they aren't here) how do you see them casting a spell? That's been defined in the past as the trigger: You have to see it being cast, and to do that, you have to have something you can see of it. Their existence around the primary caster isn't enough.
It's really weird that you responded to up2ng's example but didn't quote it and completely rearranged it.
In up2ng's example, one person started the process but was not the same person who put the turkey into the oven or took it out.
A more thorough example is what if my spouse seasons the turkey, I put it in the oven, and my child takes it out when the timer goes off. Who cooked the turkey? No one person cooked it. If it's my recipe, I brought the seasoning and the turkey, still no one person cooked it. up2ng's example is a good one for this purpose. I was thinking about a car (Initiating running a car but the car is the one running) or a rowing team (one person may initiate the rowing but the team rows) but I think the turkey works better and is seasonal for some to boot.
I am still going to sit in the everyone casts the Circle spell circle but I agree with the validity of up2ng's interpretation.
up2ng's example held the same issue yours did: All of the steps involved in actually cooking the turkey are being performed by the same person in spellcasting. The turkey analogy is inherently flawed in its presentation in that the various steps are different components of the casting step and can't be performed by different people here. Therefore, it's simply invalid. My comparison to their analogy was an attempt to reframe it in context of how it actually works compared to Circle casting: That turning the oven on, putting the turkey in, and taking it out are all analogous to knowing the spell, using the components, and releasing the spell, respectively.
Except that "using the components" isn't a step of casting the spell and releasing the spell is your fabrication, not RAW. The primary caster "has the spell prepared" (It's my recipe) "provides the [material] components" (I brought the seasoning and the turkey) but seasoning, cooking, and removing the turkey are all part of casting the spell and Circle Magic is "a technique by which many spellcasters working together could cast spells..."
Your injection of concepts are not RAW and any argument based on them is inherently invalid whether the end result happens to be correct or incorrect.
Performing verbal and somatic components isn't part of spellcasting? And how is releasing the spell not part of the spell when you can literally hold the spell for a later trigger then release it on the trigger?
Yes, many casters can work together to cast the spells. But that doesn't make them equal parties. One person is performing all components of the actual spell, the secondary casters are only contributing to the additional feature. We know this because of the separation of primary and secondary caster requirements and what each can do as part of the spell, as well as the fact that the primary caster can do everything but the Circle magic feature on their own.
So doing a breakdown of the process is an "injection of concepts" now? The real injection of concepts is trying to reinterpret how Counterspell works as a whole.
Performing verbal and somatic components isn't part of spellcasting? And how is releasing the spell not part of the spell when you can literally hold the spell for a later trigger then release it on the trigger?
Yes, many casters can work together to cast the spells. But that doesn't make them equal parties. One person is performing all components of the actual spell, the secondary casters are only contributing to the additional feature. We know this because of the separation of primary and secondary caster requirements and what each can do as part of the spell, as well as the fact that the primary caster can do everything but the Circle magic feature on their own.
So doing a breakdown of the process is an "injection of concepts" now? The real injection of concepts is trying to reinterpret how Counterspell works as a whole.
I have provided and broken down the reaction for [spellls]Counterspell[/spells]. I usually abbreviated it so in full the casting time is "Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components". because of the joys of English, "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" can modify multiple elements of the sentence but modifying the way in which the spell is cast is, in my opinion, the most reasonable. There is zero consideration in the Counterspell rules about multiple casters. Is the spell being cast with V, S, or M components? If so, the casters are valid targets. That is a valid reading of Counterspell's reaction trigger. Circle Magic adds complications by adding additional casters.
You have not once provided any evidence that a Circle spell is ever "held" and "released". That is a fabrication you have interjected due to a parallel you have drawn with readying an action to cast a spell but is never actually presented anywhere in casting a Circle spell. So, yes, you are injection concepts into the Circle Magic rules that don't exist.
The spell being held and released is a natural-language reading of the rules of Circle Magic. It's actually pretty obvious. Primary caster casts spell but spell doesn't go off immediately, must hold Concentration until the last secondary caster adds to the spell. Final secondary caster adds to the spell, spell takes effect. That's a natural hold-and-release situation.
As for Counterspell, you've still failed to answer two things:
1. Without a verbal, somatic, or material component involved in the caster's action, how do you see them casting a spell? (Tip: If you don't see the spell being cast, then Counterspell doesn't trigger off of the action taken.) 2. What makes you think the condensing of the 2014 Sage Advice ruling into the text of the 2024 Counterspell changes the way the spell works? (2024 only added the VSM component part to the reaction, but the need to see at least one of those happening within range was a Sage Advice ruling clarified in 2014 rules.)
Without a proper answer to number 1, your reading can't be considered reasonable. And number 2 is just another way to word your overall stance on the matter, I'm just curious why you think both the RAW and RAI changed on the spell just from such a simple condensing of rules text and ruling.
The spell being held and released is a natural-language reading of the rules of Circle Magic. It's actually pretty obvious. Primary caster casts spell but spell doesn't go off immediately, must hold Concentration until the last secondary caster adds to the spell. Final secondary caster adds to the spell, spell takes effect. That's a natural hold-and-release situation.
You are assuming that the spell casting completes when the primary caster completes their last Magic action, which it explicitly does not. Per Completing the Casting, the casting completes when the last secondary caster contributes to the spell. There is no "natural-language" support for you reading. It is not obvious. It is baseless.
As for Counterspell, you've still failed to answer two things:
1. Without a verbal, somatic, or material component involved in the caster's action, how do you see them casting a spell? (Tip: If you don't see the spell being cast, then Counterspell doesn't trigger off of the action taken.) 2. What makes you think the condensing of the 2014 Sage Advice ruling into the text of the 2024 Counterspell changes the way the spell works? (2024 only added the VSM component part to the reaction, but the need to see at least one of those happening within range was a Sage Advice ruling clarified in 2014 rules.)
The 2014 SAC defined the V, S, or M as the method in which you see the creature casting a spell. That is no longer the case in the 2024 spell. You must see the creature. The creature must be casting a spell. The spell must be cast with V, S, or M components. Nowhere does it say that you need to see the creature providing the components. The spell assumes that you are casting it in response to a single creature casting a 1 action spell. Nowhere is there any clarification regarding multiple casters but also nowhere is there any clarification regarding when you can see the spell being cast if the spell requires more than 1 action to cast. If you are dependent on the providing the components to cast Counterspell, when do you actually provide the components? The only example given is a single word for Fireball, which is a 1 action spell, but nothing says that for longer casting time spells, that you must provide the components at the start, throughout, or just at the end.
Until WotC says otherwise, secondary casters are valid Counterspell targets if the Circle spell has V, S, or M components. If you need a visual aid to help you picture what that might look like, the Red Wizards are feeling uncharacteristically generous and have volunteered to help.
It may very well be their intention that secondary casters of the spell are not targetable, whether the spell is Subtle or not. It may also be their intention that Circle spells cannot be made Subtle and all casters are valid targets. We won't know until the 2024 Sage Advice and Errata is updated.
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.
If you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 minute or longer, you must take the Magic action on each turn of that casting, and you must maintain Concentration while you do so. If your Concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. See also “Concentration.”
The entry for the Magic action pretty firmly states that you cast a spell with a casting time of an action with it, and doesn't give a way to cast such spells with a longer casting time. The line below, about casting times of 1 minute or longer, don't apply to spells with a casting time of 1 action because the casting time is a trait of the spell, rather than that line applying to any spell that takes that long for any reason. (Ritual spells actually offer a specific way to extend the casting time of spells, but they also clearly state that the casting time is extended; this modifies the spell itself.)
Ok. Now THIS is the first thing anyone has been able to show that possibly can be interpreted as 'you can't extend the casting to multiple actions'. Well done, and I do not mean that sarcastically. I really have been wondering if there was something I was overlooking that could reasonably be interpreted to say there was a limit, and this very much seems to say that. [...]
Essentially, the same thing is explained in Chapter 7, which is also the source AntonSirius quoted the rule from in reply #86
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.
[...]
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 spell being held and released is a natural-language reading of the rules of Circle Magic. It's actually pretty obvious. Primary caster casts spell but spell doesn't go off immediately, must hold Concentration until the last secondary caster adds to the spell. Final secondary caster adds to the spell, spell takes effect. That's a natural hold-and-release situation.
You are assuming that the spell casting completes when the primary caster completes their last Magic action, which it explicitly does not. Per Completing the Casting, the casting completes when the last secondary caster contributes to the spell. There is no "natural-language" support for you reading. It is not obvious. It is baseless.
As for Counterspell, you've still failed to answer two things:
1. Without a verbal, somatic, or material component involved in the caster's action, how do you see them casting a spell? (Tip: If you don't see the spell being cast, then Counterspell doesn't trigger off of the action taken.) 2. What makes you think the condensing of the 2014 Sage Advice ruling into the text of the 2024 Counterspell changes the way the spell works? (2024 only added the VSM component part to the reaction, but the need to see at least one of those happening within range was a Sage Advice ruling clarified in 2014 rules.)
The 2014 SAC defined the V, S, or M as the method in which you see the creature casting a spell. That is no longer the case in the 2024 spell. You must see the creature. The creature must be casting a spell. The spell must be cast with V, S, or M components. Nowhere does it say that you need to see the creature providing the components. The spell assumes that you are casting it in response to a single creature casting a 1 action spell. Nowhere is there any clarification regarding multiple casters but also nowhere is there any clarification regarding when you can see the spell being cast if the spell requires more than 1 action to cast. If you are dependent on the providing the components to cast Counterspell, when do you actually provide the components? The only example given is a single word for Fireball, which is a 1 action spell, but nothing says that for longer casting time spells, that you must provide the components at the start, throughout, or just at the end.
Until WotC says otherwise, secondary casters are valid Counterspell targets if the Circle spell has V, S, or M components. If you need a visual aid to help you picture what that might look like, the Red Wizards are feeling uncharacteristically generous and have volunteered to help.
It may very well be their intention that secondary casters of the spell are not targetable, whether the spell is Subtle or not. It may also be their intention that Circle spells cannot be made Subtle and all casters are valid targets. We won't know until the 2024 Sage Advice and Errata is updated.
Nonsense. You must see a creature casting with at least one component. If the creature casts with no components, you can't counterspell.
We've already established 'with components' modifies cast, not spell (or otherwise subtle spell is counterspell-able). So the fact that someone else casting the spell uses components is irrelevant, because the person you're trying to react to is not casting with components.
English might have many ways to assign clauses, but when you agree that one assignment of clauses leads to results that are patently false, then you can't use that assignment of clauses in any reading. The clause 'with components' must always modify 'cast', not 'spell'.
And I would ask how you see them casting a spell when they use no components? They're basically auto-subtle spell casting, by definition.
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.
Not when a secondary caster takes the Magic action to contribute to the spell.
I'm afraid that, if "Casting a Circle Spell" and "To cast the spell again" don't tip you off that you're actually casting a spell, we're going to always be at an impasse. No amount of semantics will be able to convince me that this isn't casting a spell, both RAW and RAI.
I'm not saying that you are wrong here (I don't even think that you are). At the end of it all a spell is cast, I mean that is the whole idea of Circle spells.
That said, my issue here (and I guess, also the issue that @up2ng have) is that it seems that those that wrote the Circle spell feature doesn't agree with you. I mean if they did why would they have added that sentence about a new, separate, trigger for Reactions? If everything that happens is that "one (well several really) creature(s) casts a spell" why would they tell us that a Reaction that triggers on "a creature casts a spell" can also trigger if we are doing this? Adding a new trigger for something that is not just similar but the same darn thing as the old trigger is isn't just superfluous, it is actively misleading. But still they obviously spent time (and space) on it, adding a new trigger that is more strictly limited than the bog standard "a creature casts a spell" that everyone knows how it works.
Sure the designers aren't always very good writers and this wouldn't be the first misleading clarification we've gotten but still, I think it would be prudent to at least acknowledge that for some reason the designers of the feature thought that "a creature cast a spell" wasn't good enough.
I'm afraid that, if "Casting a Circle Spell" and "To cast the spell again" don't tip you off that you're actually casting a spell, we're going to always be at an impasse. No amount of semantics will be able to convince me that this isn't casting a spell, both RAW and RAI.
I'm not saying that you are wrong here (I don't even think that you are). At the end of it all a spell is cast, I mean that is the whole idea of Circle spells.
That said, my issue here (and I guess, also the issue that @up2ng have) is that it seems that those that wrote the Circle spell feature doesn't agree with you. I mean if they did why would they have added that sentence about a new, separate, trigger for Reactions? If everything that happens is that "one (well several really) creature(s) casts a spell" why would they tell us that a Reaction that triggers on "a creature casts a spell" can also trigger if we are doing this? Adding a new trigger for something that is not just similar but the same darn thing as the old trigger is isn't just superfluous, it is actively misleading. But still they obviously spent time (and space) on it, adding a new trigger that is more strictly limited than the bog standard "a creature casts a spell" that everyone knows how it works.
Sure the designers aren't always very good writers and this wouldn't be the first misleading clarification we've gotten but still, I think it would be prudent to at least acknowledge that for some reason the designers of the feature thought that "a creature cast a spell" wasn't good enough.
My read on that, which I think I stated before, is that it's intended to create a bright(er) line between primary and secondary casters
Keep in mind it's worded to include Reactions other than Counterspell too. If a character has the 2014 Mage Slayer feat, for instance, they could attack the primary caster with their reaction, but not a secondary caster
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)
up2ng's example held the same issue yours did: All of the steps involved in actually cooking the turkey are being performed by the same person in spellcasting. The turkey analogy is inherently flawed in its presentation in that the various steps are different components of the casting step and can't be performed by different people here. Therefore, it's simply invalid.
It looks like you've missed the point of the example. In Circle Magic, by rule there is a division of labor. Sure, obviously the labor is not divided as evenly as in the example that I gave. I did that deliberately to make it extra clear that each person involved in the process is only contributing a portion of the overall procedure. In Circle Magic, the primary caster has a lot of the responsibilities. But he does NOT have ALL of the responsibilities. His activity alone cannot result in the casting of a Circle Spell. The primary caster does NOT contribute all of the "components of the casting step" -- a Circle Spell is not actually cast until the end. Everyone involved contributes to the actual casting steps.
That wording is very important. It's NOT saying that Counterspell is also triggered by this Magic action because it is the same as a creature casting a spell. On the contrary, it is saying that the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell is NOT the same as a creature casting a spell. From that starting point, the rule is explicitly declaring that any reaction that is triggered when a creature casts a spell IS ALSO triggered by this [totally different] Magic action that is used to initiate a Circle spell.
This text is telling us that a creature who takes the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell is not actually casting a spell. This is part of the reason why I am interpreting the overall process to work in the manner which I described above where no individual spellcaster is actually casting the Circle spell for the purposes of interaction with features which trigger "when you cast a spell".
I'm afraid that, if "Casting a Circle Spell" and "To cast the spell again" don't tip you off that you're actually casting a spell, we're going to always be at an impasse. No amount of semantics will be able to convince me that this isn't casting a spell, both RAW and RAI.
Dodging the question that I've posed about the wording of the Counterspell clarification is not helpful here. It's not semantics -- this is very important information that has been delivered directly from the author.
What does "Casting a Circle Spell" or "To cast the spell again" have anything to do with what we are discussing? Of course a Circle Spell is being cast. This outlines the entire procedure for making that happen. It's like opening up a cook book and seeing an entire section of text with the heading: "How to Cook a Turkey". The procedure for making that happen is within that section of text and it involves several steps. That doesn't mean that any one individual is actually doing that.
Again, if we begin with the old framework of "How To Cast a Spell" as an individual spellcaster, there are a bunch of rules and prerequisites that must be satisfied that are explained in the spellcasting chapter. But when it comes to the question of how to actually do it? In 2014, Spellcaster A would take the "Cast a Spell" action. This action resulted in Spellcaster A casting a spell. In 2024, Spellcaster A takes the Magic action to cast a spell. That action results in Spellcaster A casting a spell. In both cases, Spellcaster A does the activity that is described as casting a spell. If Spellcaster A wants to apply a feature to that casting, such as Subtle Spell, which triggers "when you cast a spell", it is obvious that this feature interaction works because Spellcaster A has indeed "cast a spell".
When it comes to the mechanics for Circle Magic, this simply is not the case as evidenced by the wording of the Counterspell clarification. Spellcaster A did not cast the spell. Instead, Spellcaster A took the "initiate casting Magic action" which does not result in the casting of a spell. This Magic action is explicitly declared (within the Counterspell clarification) to be something different than the 2024 Magic action to cast a spell.
Therefore, my interpretation of this mechanic is such that when Spellcaster A takes the "initiate casting Magic action" and Spellcaster A wants to apply a feature to the overall casting, such as Subtle Spell, which triggers "when you cast a spell", the result is that this feature cannot be applied because its trigger was not satisfied.
Yes, many casters can work together to cast the spells. But that doesn't make them equal parties. One person is performing all components of the actual spell, the secondary casters are only contributing to the additional feature. We know this because of the separation of primary and secondary caster requirements and what each can do as part of the spell, as well as the fact that the primary caster can do everything but the Circle magic feature on their own.
Yes, this is all true -- the division of labor is not equal. And yet, you really cannot differentiate it in the way that you are describing. The casting of the spell does not happen until the end and multiple spellcasters are required to cast it.
For example, once you declare that you are initiating a Circle Spell, you cannot then change your mind and revert back to casting the spell as an individual spellcaster, if, for example, all of your allies have been rendered unconscious. Once you initiate the Circle Spell, that's it. It's a Circle Spell. It's all or nothing. You cannot cast that spell on your own. One of the reasons for this is because you have taken a different action. Instead of taking a Magic action to cast a spell you have taken a Magic action to initiate a Circle spell. You cannot go back and change your action once it has been taken.
The spell being held and released is a natural-language reading of the rules of Circle Magic. It's actually pretty obvious. Primary caster casts spell but spell doesn't go off immediately, must hold Concentration until the last secondary caster adds to the spell. Final secondary caster adds to the spell, spell takes effect. That's a natural hold-and-release situation.
Ok, this mistake has popped up a few times in this thread now. In order for all of us to properly figure out and understand the Circle Magic mechanics it's actually pretty important that we all get on the same page on this detail. I gave my explanation earlier, but it may have been missed:
__________
As a matter of fact, the overall process when you Ready a spell is quite a bit different than what happens with Circle Magic. The most obvious difference is that when you Ready a spell, the spell slot is lost if the spell is not successfully cast. So, in that case the spell was actually cast. Then, after it is cast the effect is then held / delayed until some future event might trigger its release. In the case of Circle Magic, there are Magic actions that are taken that do NOT result in the casting of the spell. The spell is not actually cast in Circle Magic until all of the casters have taken their Magic actions:
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.
In this way, the mechanics for casting a Circle Spell actually have a lot more in common with the general rules for casting a spell with a "longer casting time" (such as a Ritual Spell) than a Readied spell.
__________
This is one of the few cases where I think that a Sage Advice clarification would be helpful because unfortunately the ruling on this detail impacts whether or not a feature that triggers "when you cast a spell" actually does trigger or not and that has some pretty significant gameplay ramifications.
The spell being held and released is a natural-language reading of the rules of Circle Magic. It's actually pretty obvious. Primary caster casts spell but spell doesn't go off immediately, must hold Concentration until the last secondary caster adds to the spell. Final secondary caster adds to the spell, spell takes effect. That's a natural hold-and-release situation.
You are assuming that the spell casting completes when the primary caster completes their last Magic action, which it explicitly does not. Per Completing the Casting, the casting completes when the last secondary caster contributes to the spell. There is no "natural-language" support for you reading. It is not obvious. It is baseless.
As for Counterspell, you've still failed to answer two things:
1. Without a verbal, somatic, or material component involved in the caster's action, how do you see them casting a spell? (Tip: If you don't see the spell being cast, then Counterspell doesn't trigger off of the action taken.) 2. What makes you think the condensing of the 2014 Sage Advice ruling into the text of the 2024 Counterspell changes the way the spell works? (2024 only added the VSM component part to the reaction, but the need to see at least one of those happening within range was a Sage Advice ruling clarified in 2014 rules.)
The 2014 SAC defined the V, S, or M as the method in which you see the creature casting a spell. That is no longer the case in the 2024 spell. You must see the creature. The creature must be casting a spell. The spell must be cast with V, S, or M components. Nowhere does it say that you need to see the creature providing the components. The spell assumes that you are casting it in response to a single creature casting a 1 action spell. Nowhere is there any clarification regarding multiple casters but also nowhere is there any clarification regarding when you can see the spell being cast if the spell requires more than 1 action to cast. If you are dependent on the providing the components to cast Counterspell, when do you actually provide the components? The only example given is a single word for Fireball, which is a 1 action spell, but nothing says that for longer casting time spells, that you must provide the components at the start, throughout, or just at the end.
Until WotC says otherwise, secondary casters are valid Counterspell targets if the Circle spell has V, S, or M components. If you need a visual aid to help you picture what that might look like, the Red Wizards are feeling uncharacteristically generous and have volunteered to help.
It may very well be their intention that secondary casters of the spell are not targetable, whether the spell is Subtle or not. It may also be their intention that Circle spells cannot be made Subtle and all casters are valid targets. We won't know until the 2024 Sage Advice and Errata is updated.
Nonsense. You must see a creature casting with at least one component. If the creature casts with no components, you can't counterspell.
We've already established 'with components' modifies cast, not spell (or otherwise subtle spell is counterspell-able). So the fact that someone else casting the spell uses components is irrelevant, because the person you're trying to react to is not casting with components.
English might have many ways to assign clauses, but when you agree that one assignment of clauses leads to results that are patently false, then you can't use that assignment of clauses in any reading. The clause 'with components' must always modify 'cast', not 'spell'.
And I would ask how you see them casting a spell when they use no components? They're basically auto-subtle spell casting, by definition.
I can randomly declare nonsense as well but exactly like your declaration, it would have no weight. The spell is being cast with or without spell components. The is modifying the casting of the spell. Until WotC clarifies multiple aspects of Counterspell, Circle Magic, and Subtle Spell, there will be multiple aspects that are disputed with multiple valid interpretations. It has been proposed in this thread, that Circle Magic is not compatible with Subtle Spell. I don't subscribe to that belief but I can see the logic of it.
Because "with components" modifies the spell's casting, does not mean that it requires a specific caster to provide those components. I hope we get Sage Advice on Circle Magic because I don't think it's been thought out fully, particularly in terms of the interactions with Counterspell, concentration, and certain features.
The spell being held and released is a natural-language reading of the rules of Circle Magic. It's actually pretty obvious. Primary caster casts spell but spell doesn't go off immediately, must hold Concentration until the last secondary caster adds to the spell. Final secondary caster adds to the spell, spell takes effect. That's a natural hold-and-release situation.
You are assuming that the spell casting completes when the primary caster completes their last Magic action, which it explicitly does not. Per Completing the Casting, the casting completes when the last secondary caster contributes to the spell. There is no "natural-language" support for you reading. It is not obvious. It is baseless.
As for Counterspell, you've still failed to answer two things:
1. Without a verbal, somatic, or material component involved in the caster's action, how do you see them casting a spell? (Tip: If you don't see the spell being cast, then Counterspell doesn't trigger off of the action taken.) 2. What makes you think the condensing of the 2014 Sage Advice ruling into the text of the 2024 Counterspell changes the way the spell works? (2024 only added the VSM component part to the reaction, but the need to see at least one of those happening within range was a Sage Advice ruling clarified in 2014 rules.)
The 2014 SAC defined the V, S, or M as the method in which you see the creature casting a spell. That is no longer the case in the 2024 spell. You must see the creature. The creature must be casting a spell. The spell must be cast with V, S, or M components. Nowhere does it say that you need to see the creature providing the components. The spell assumes that you are casting it in response to a single creature casting a 1 action spell. Nowhere is there any clarification regarding multiple casters but also nowhere is there any clarification regarding when you can see the spell being cast if the spell requires more than 1 action to cast. If you are dependent on the providing the components to cast Counterspell, when do you actually provide the components? The only example given is a single word for Fireball, which is a 1 action spell, but nothing says that for longer casting time spells, that you must provide the components at the start, throughout, or just at the end.
Until WotC says otherwise, secondary casters are valid Counterspell targets if the Circle spell has V, S, or M components. If you need a visual aid to help you picture what that might look like, the Red Wizards are feeling uncharacteristically generous and have volunteered to help.
It may very well be their intention that secondary casters of the spell are not targetable, whether the spell is Subtle or not. It may also be their intention that Circle spells cannot be made Subtle and all casters are valid targets. We won't know until the 2024 Sage Advice and Errata is updated.
Nonsense. You must see a creature casting with at least one component. If the creature casts with no components, you can't counterspell.
We've already established 'with components' modifies cast, not spell (or otherwise subtle spell is counterspell-able). So the fact that someone else casting the spell uses components is irrelevant, because the person you're trying to react to is not casting with components.
English might have many ways to assign clauses, but when you agree that one assignment of clauses leads to results that are patently false, then you can't use that assignment of clauses in any reading. The clause 'with components' must always modify 'cast', not 'spell'.
And I would ask how you see them casting a spell when they use no components? They're basically auto-subtle spell casting, by definition.
I can randomly declare nonsense as well but exactly like your declaration, it would have no weight. The spell is being cast with or without spell components. The is modifying the casting of the spell. Until WotC clarifies multiple aspects of Counterspell, Circle Magic, and Subtle Spell, there will be multiple aspects that are disputed with multiple valid interpretations. It has been proposed in this thread, that Circle Magic is not compatible with Subtle Spell. I don't subscribe to that belief but I can see the logic of it.
Because "with components" modifies the spell's casting, does not mean that it requires a specific caster to provide those components. I hope we get Sage Advice on Circle Magic because I don't think it's been thought out fully, particularly in terms of the interactions with Counterspell, concentration, and certain features.
Oh, i see what the confusion is... you think they're casting the main spell. They're not. I'll grant their casting, but they're just casting their power contribution, not the spell itself.
And the only way you can see a creature casting is if they are using components. So even if your interpretation was accurate, you still couldn't use them as a trigger, because you don't actually see them casting.
Oh, i see what the confusion is... you think they're casting the main spell. They're not. I'll grant their casting, but they're just casting their power contribution, not the spell itself.
And the only way you can see a creature casting is if they are using components. So even if your interpretation was accurate, you still couldn't use them as a trigger, because you don't actually see them casting.
So, in the section on Casting a Circle Spell, they are casting but not casting? What? There is no "casting their power contribution". That's a thing that you made up. If the secondary spell casters are casting as part of participating in the casting of a Circle spell, they are casting the Circle spell. They are not the only one casting the spell and they may not be the one directing the spell but they are casting the spell.
If a group of people play football, you don't pick the quarterback from each and say they are playing and everyone else is just helping and can't be tackled because they aren't the player.
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.
If you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 minute or longer, you must take the Magic action on each turn of that casting, and you must maintain Concentration while you do so. If your Concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. See also “Concentration.”
The entry for the Magic action pretty firmly states that you cast a spell with a casting time of an action with it, and doesn't give a way to cast such spells with a longer casting time. The line below, about casting times of 1 minute or longer, don't apply to spells with a casting time of 1 action because the casting time is a trait of the spell, rather than that line applying to any spell that takes that long for any reason. (Ritual spells actually offer a specific way to extend the casting time of spells, but they also clearly state that the casting time is extended; this modifies the spell itself.)
Ok. Now THIS is the first thing anyone has been able to show that possibly can be interpreted as 'you can't extend the casting to multiple actions'. Well done, and I do not mean that sarcastically. I really have been wondering if there was something I was overlooking that could reasonably be interpreted to say there was a limit, and this very much seems to say that. [...]
Essentially, the same thing is explained in Chapter 7, which is also the source AntonSirius quoted the rule from in reply #86
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.
[...]
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.
Right. We talked about that. That section does not explicitly state that you cannot take longer if you so choose. Why you would so choose is beyond me (or it was until Circle Magic arrived), but by that wording it remained a possibility (since a requirement is generally a minimum).
What Athanar90 posted is similar, but it has critical differences. The line '[w]hen you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action'. Casting a spell is definite. It is not 'you may cast a spell that has a casting time of one action'. There is an 'or' clause to that, but trying to extend the casting under normal circumstances does not appear to qualify as any of those options. That leaves us with the definite 'you cast'.
I realize that it is a subtle difference, but it is also a crucial one.
edit: Removed the fact that I felt it failed to answer the ultimate question about Circle Magic because Anthanar90 pointed out a different section, specific to Circle Magic, that does answer it.
After you initiate the spell, each secondary caster takes the Magic action to contribute to the spell. A secondary caster can take this action only while within 30 feet of you and before the start of your next turn.
THAT is the part I was missing. There is something that limits when the secondary caster can join.
Thank you.
Yes. I am now convinced that RAW states that you cannot sustain a spell when using Circle Magic over multiple turns to allow other people to join in later (and I was previously convinced you could not do it outside of Circle Magic by your other source).
Or, I suppose if I wanted to be obstinate and pedantic I could make some type of argument that it is still possible to sustain it, but now it can never be actually cast since the 'final secondary caster' never contributes because they are too late and unable to join, which renders such an action pointless. However, I am not taking that position (I am more making a joke and pointing out that absolute pedantry can lead to some pretty crazy places) because, as I said, it is pointless and whether interpreted one way or the other has zero significant impact on play.
Because "with components" modifies the spell's casting, does not mean that it requires a specific caster to provide those components.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but there is a particular problem with this interpretation.
A common mistake when it comes to Counterspell is not realizing that when you cast the Counterspell spell you are actually targeting a creature. You are not targeting the spell that is being cast, or the spellcasting process or anything like that. You are targeting a creature. According to the spell description, in order for that creature to be a valid target for the Counterspell spell, you must actually see that creature casting a spell.
Important Note: It does NOT say "when you see a creature that is casting a spell". That would have an entirely different meaning which is more aligned with your interpretation.
All primary + secondary casters are casting a Circle Spell togheter;
a technique by which many spellcasters working together could cast spells beyond the limit of any individual.
A Circle spell has spell components which are provided by the primary caster;
the primary caster decide the spell's targets, maintain Concentration if required by the spell's Duration entry, provide the spell's components
For these reasons i believe Reaction triggering when a creature casts a spell such as Counterspell triggers when the primary caster take a Magic action to initiate a Circle spell, not when secondary caster take the Magic action to contribute to the spell.
Oh, i see what the confusion is... you think they're casting the main spell. They're not. I'll grant their casting, but they're just casting their power contribution, not the spell itself.
And the only way you can see a creature casting is if they are using components. So even if your interpretation was accurate, you still couldn't use them as a trigger, because you don't actually see them casting.
So, in the section on Casting a Circle Spell, they are casting but not casting? What? There is no "casting their power contribution". That's a thing that you made up. If the secondary spell casters are casting as part of participating in the casting of a Circle spell, they are casting the Circle spell. They are not the only one casting the spell and they may not be the one directing the spell but they are casting the spell.
If a group of people play football, you don't pick the quarterback from each and say they are playing and everyone else is just helping and can't be tackled because they aren't the player.
I disagree. They clearly aren't casting the spell - they don't need to know it, and they don't spend a spell slot of the level the spell is. They in no way satisfy the rules to be casting the spell. I will grant they are casting, but they are not 'casting that spell'. So at best you could counterspell their contribution, assuming they satisfied the trigger.
But as to the second point, you're dead wrong. RAW, to see a creature casting a spell is to see the creature using components. Even if they are casting the spell in the way you need to be true, you can't see them casting it, because they use no components. Whatever they are doing is not visibly casting a spell. So the counterspell trigger cannot be satisfied.
Oh, i see what the confusion is... you think they're casting the main spell. They're not. I'll grant their casting, but they're just casting their power contribution, not the spell itself.
And the only way you can see a creature casting is if they are using components. So even if your interpretation was accurate, you still couldn't use them as a trigger, because you don't actually see them casting.
So, in the section on Casting a Circle Spell, they are casting but not casting? What? There is no "casting their power contribution". That's a thing that you made up. If the secondary spell casters are casting as part of participating in the casting of a Circle spell, they are casting the Circle spell. They are not the only one casting the spell and they may not be the one directing the spell but they are casting the spell.
If a group of people play football, you don't pick the quarterback from each and say they are playing and everyone else is just helping and can't be tackled because they aren't the player.
I disagree. They clearly aren't casting the spell - they don't need to know it, and they don't spend a spell slot of the level the spell is. They in no way satisfy the rules to be casting the spell. I will grant they are casting, but they are not 'casting that spell'. So at best you could counterspell their contribution, assuming they satisfied the trigger.
But as to the second point, you're dead wrong. RAW, to see a creature casting a spell is to see the creature using components. Even if they are casting the spell in the way you need to be true, you can't see them casting it, because they use no components. Whatever they are doing is not visibly casting a spell. So the counterspell trigger cannot be satisfied.
I will go out on a limb and sort of split the difference.
Under the RAW, as I see it, there is exactly one opportunity to Counterspell the Circle Magic; when the primary caster begins. They explicitly state that Counterspell is usable at this point.
By RAW the secondary casters cannot be the target of Counterspell.
First, there is no support that the secondary casters are using Verbal or Somatic Components. Saying the spell being cast requires the components is irrelevant because if the spell being cast requires Material Components we know they are not obligated to provide those. While we aren't told explicitly that they don't have to contribute Verbal or Somatic components, we are told that the primary caster 'provide[s] the spell’s components". It doesn't say Material Components, it says components, which would indicate all of them. That seems a pretty strong indication that the secondary casters do not have to provide even Verbal or Somatic Components.
Whether they can be considered to be 'casting the spell or not' doesn't matter because they do not fulfill the complete requirement of Counterspell, 'casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components'. We can split hairs and argue until the cows come home as to exactly what is going on, but& RAW seem pretty straightforward and clear.
Secondly, we are explicitly told that the primary caster can trigger Counterspell. The fact that nothing is said about the secondary casters would seem to strongly indicate that will not.
So that is the RAW. It even pretty strongly appears to be the RAI, but I will admit it is not absolutely rock solid set in stone. It is possible that errors and omissions contribute to giving an impression that the designers did not really intend. Until we get some kind of 'word of God' we won't have an answer to that.
So, people working from the position that there are errors and omissions (not a great place to work from, but I admit I have worked from there myself) can come to the conclusion that was not meant to be RAI
If someone is working from that position we don't have clear guidelines as to what Counterspell does when cast on the secondary caster. It seems the safest ruling is that they simply fail to contribute. In spells with longer Casting Times there is possibility to disrupt a spell through the secondary casters, but in spells that require a single Action, a secondary caster could successfully contribute to the spell and then be killed before the spell concludes and it would have no effect on the spell.
I suppose a DM could interpret that for a longer Casting Time spell things that affect the secondary caster affect the spell so an argument could be made that Counterspell disrupts the entire thing in that case, but they would be way out on a limb there. A much more reasonable interpretation at that point would simply be that they were 'locked out' before they even began to contribute.
tl;dr
RAW seem to support the idea that you can only Counterspell the primary caster when they initiate. It is possible to assume some stuff was accidentally left off during editing that allows Counterspell to be used on secondary casters, but that is a shaky position to work from, and even if such a thing occurred all it would probably have done was prevent them from contributing, not shut down the entire spell.
Naturally, anyone who doesn't like these conclusions who is DMing is absolutely 100% free to houserule however they like, so if you want Counterspell to be able to shut down Circle Magic, just say that it does. There's no need to try and deep dive and try to force the rules in a direction they don't seem designed to go.
I highly encourage folks, what with Thanksgiving coming up in the States and all, to tell your aunt that she didn't really cook the turkey and it was a group effort, because you helped with the stuffing or whatever. Please report back your findings
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)
If they aren't using any verbal, somatic, or material components (which we KNOW they aren't here) how do you see them casting a spell? That's been defined in the past as the trigger: You have to see it being cast, and to do that, you have to have something you can see of it. Their existence around the primary caster isn't enough.
Performing verbal and somatic components isn't part of spellcasting? And how is releasing the spell not part of the spell when you can literally hold the spell for a later trigger then release it on the trigger?
Yes, many casters can work together to cast the spells. But that doesn't make them equal parties. One person is performing all components of the actual spell, the secondary casters are only contributing to the additional feature. We know this because of the separation of primary and secondary caster requirements and what each can do as part of the spell, as well as the fact that the primary caster can do everything but the Circle magic feature on their own.
So doing a breakdown of the process is an "injection of concepts" now? The real injection of concepts is trying to reinterpret how Counterspell works as a whole.
I have provided and broken down the reaction for [spellls]Counterspell[/spells]. I usually abbreviated it so in full the casting time is "Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components". because of the joys of English, "with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components" can modify multiple elements of the sentence but modifying the way in which the spell is cast is, in my opinion, the most reasonable. There is zero consideration in the Counterspell rules about multiple casters. Is the spell being cast with V, S, or M components? If so, the casters are valid targets. That is a valid reading of Counterspell's reaction trigger. Circle Magic adds complications by adding additional casters.
You have not once provided any evidence that a Circle spell is ever "held" and "released". That is a fabrication you have interjected due to a parallel you have drawn with readying an action to cast a spell but is never actually presented anywhere in casting a Circle spell. So, yes, you are injection concepts into the Circle Magic rules that don't exist.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The spell being held and released is a natural-language reading of the rules of Circle Magic. It's actually pretty obvious. Primary caster casts spell but spell doesn't go off immediately, must hold Concentration until the last secondary caster adds to the spell. Final secondary caster adds to the spell, spell takes effect. That's a natural hold-and-release situation.
As for Counterspell, you've still failed to answer two things:
1. Without a verbal, somatic, or material component involved in the caster's action, how do you see them casting a spell? (Tip: If you don't see the spell being cast, then Counterspell doesn't trigger off of the action taken.)
2. What makes you think the condensing of the 2014 Sage Advice ruling into the text of the 2024 Counterspell changes the way the spell works? (2024 only added the VSM component part to the reaction, but the need to see at least one of those happening within range was a Sage Advice ruling clarified in 2014 rules.)
Without a proper answer to number 1, your reading can't be considered reasonable. And number 2 is just another way to word your overall stance on the matter, I'm just curious why you think both the RAW and RAI changed on the spell just from such a simple condensing of rules text and ruling.
You are assuming that the spell casting completes when the primary caster completes their last Magic action, which it explicitly does not. Per Completing the Casting, the casting completes when the last secondary caster contributes to the spell. There is no "natural-language" support for you reading. It is not obvious. It is baseless.
The 2014 SAC defined the V, S, or M as the method in which you see the creature casting a spell. That is no longer the case in the 2024 spell. You must see the creature. The creature must be casting a spell. The spell must be cast with V, S, or M components. Nowhere does it say that you need to see the creature providing the components. The spell assumes that you are casting it in response to a single creature casting a 1 action spell. Nowhere is there any clarification regarding multiple casters but also nowhere is there any clarification regarding when you can see the spell being cast if the spell requires more than 1 action to cast. If you are dependent on the providing the components to cast Counterspell, when do you actually provide the components? The only example given is a single word for Fireball, which is a 1 action spell, but nothing says that for longer casting time spells, that you must provide the components at the start, throughout, or just at the end.
Until WotC says otherwise, secondary casters are valid Counterspell targets if the Circle spell has V, S, or M components. If you need a visual aid to help you picture what that might look like, the Red Wizards are feeling uncharacteristically generous and have volunteered to help.
It may very well be their intention that secondary casters of the spell are not targetable, whether the spell is Subtle or not. It may also be their intention that Circle spells cannot be made Subtle and all casters are valid targets. We won't know until the 2024 Sage Advice and Errata is updated.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Essentially, the same thing is explained in Chapter 7, which is also the source AntonSirius quoted the rule from in reply #86
Nonsense. You must see a creature casting with at least one component. If the creature casts with no components, you can't counterspell.
We've already established 'with components' modifies cast, not spell (or otherwise subtle spell is counterspell-able). So the fact that someone else casting the spell uses components is irrelevant, because the person you're trying to react to is not casting with components.
English might have many ways to assign clauses, but when you agree that one assignment of clauses leads to results that are patently false, then you can't use that assignment of clauses in any reading. The clause 'with components' must always modify 'cast', not 'spell'.
And I would ask how you see them casting a spell when they use no components? They're basically auto-subtle spell casting, by definition.
Not when a secondary caster takes the Magic action to contribute to the spell.
I'm not saying that you are wrong here (I don't even think that you are). At the end of it all a spell is cast, I mean that is the whole idea of Circle spells.
That said, my issue here (and I guess, also the issue that @up2ng have) is that it seems that those that wrote the Circle spell feature doesn't agree with you. I mean if they did why would they have added that sentence about a new, separate, trigger for Reactions? If everything that happens is that "one (well several really) creature(s) casts a spell" why would they tell us that a Reaction that triggers on "a creature casts a spell" can also trigger if we are doing this? Adding a new trigger for something that is not just similar but the same darn thing as the old trigger is isn't just superfluous, it is actively misleading. But still they obviously spent time (and space) on it, adding a new trigger that is more strictly limited than the bog standard "a creature casts a spell" that everyone knows how it works.
Sure the designers aren't always very good writers and this wouldn't be the first misleading clarification we've gotten but still, I think it would be prudent to at least acknowledge that for some reason the designers of the feature thought that "a creature cast a spell" wasn't good enough.
My read on that, which I think I stated before, is that it's intended to create a bright(er) line between primary and secondary casters
Keep in mind it's worded to include Reactions other than Counterspell too. If a character has the 2014 Mage Slayer feat, for instance, they could attack the primary caster with their reaction, but not a secondary caster
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)
It looks like you've missed the point of the example. In Circle Magic, by rule there is a division of labor. Sure, obviously the labor is not divided as evenly as in the example that I gave. I did that deliberately to make it extra clear that each person involved in the process is only contributing a portion of the overall procedure. In Circle Magic, the primary caster has a lot of the responsibilities. But he does NOT have ALL of the responsibilities. His activity alone cannot result in the casting of a Circle Spell. The primary caster does NOT contribute all of the "components of the casting step" -- a Circle Spell is not actually cast until the end. Everyone involved contributes to the actual casting steps.
Dodging the question that I've posed about the wording of the Counterspell clarification is not helpful here. It's not semantics -- this is very important information that has been delivered directly from the author.
What does "Casting a Circle Spell" or "To cast the spell again" have anything to do with what we are discussing? Of course a Circle Spell is being cast. This outlines the entire procedure for making that happen. It's like opening up a cook book and seeing an entire section of text with the heading: "How to Cook a Turkey". The procedure for making that happen is within that section of text and it involves several steps. That doesn't mean that any one individual is actually doing that.
Again, if we begin with the old framework of "How To Cast a Spell" as an individual spellcaster, there are a bunch of rules and prerequisites that must be satisfied that are explained in the spellcasting chapter. But when it comes to the question of how to actually do it? In 2014, Spellcaster A would take the "Cast a Spell" action. This action resulted in Spellcaster A casting a spell. In 2024, Spellcaster A takes the Magic action to cast a spell. That action results in Spellcaster A casting a spell. In both cases, Spellcaster A does the activity that is described as casting a spell. If Spellcaster A wants to apply a feature to that casting, such as Subtle Spell, which triggers "when you cast a spell", it is obvious that this feature interaction works because Spellcaster A has indeed "cast a spell".
When it comes to the mechanics for Circle Magic, this simply is not the case as evidenced by the wording of the Counterspell clarification. Spellcaster A did not cast the spell. Instead, Spellcaster A took the "initiate casting Magic action" which does not result in the casting of a spell. This Magic action is explicitly declared (within the Counterspell clarification) to be something different than the 2024 Magic action to cast a spell.
Therefore, my interpretation of this mechanic is such that when Spellcaster A takes the "initiate casting Magic action" and Spellcaster A wants to apply a feature to the overall casting, such as Subtle Spell, which triggers "when you cast a spell", the result is that this feature cannot be applied because its trigger was not satisfied.
Yes, this is all true -- the division of labor is not equal. And yet, you really cannot differentiate it in the way that you are describing. The casting of the spell does not happen until the end and multiple spellcasters are required to cast it.
For example, once you declare that you are initiating a Circle Spell, you cannot then change your mind and revert back to casting the spell as an individual spellcaster, if, for example, all of your allies have been rendered unconscious. Once you initiate the Circle Spell, that's it. It's a Circle Spell. It's all or nothing. You cannot cast that spell on your own. One of the reasons for this is because you have taken a different action. Instead of taking a Magic action to cast a spell you have taken a Magic action to initiate a Circle spell. You cannot go back and change your action once it has been taken.
Ok, this mistake has popped up a few times in this thread now. In order for all of us to properly figure out and understand the Circle Magic mechanics it's actually pretty important that we all get on the same page on this detail. I gave my explanation earlier, but it may have been missed:
__________
As a matter of fact, the overall process when you Ready a spell is quite a bit different than what happens with Circle Magic. The most obvious difference is that when you Ready a spell, the spell slot is lost if the spell is not successfully cast. So, in that case the spell was actually cast. Then, after it is cast the effect is then held / delayed until some future event might trigger its release. In the case of Circle Magic, there are Magic actions that are taken that do NOT result in the casting of the spell. The spell is not actually cast in Circle Magic until all of the casters have taken their Magic actions:
In this way, the mechanics for casting a Circle Spell actually have a lot more in common with the general rules for casting a spell with a "longer casting time" (such as a Ritual Spell) than a Readied spell.
__________
This is one of the few cases where I think that a Sage Advice clarification would be helpful because unfortunately the ruling on this detail impacts whether or not a feature that triggers "when you cast a spell" actually does trigger or not and that has some pretty significant gameplay ramifications.
I can randomly declare nonsense as well but exactly like your declaration, it would have no weight. The spell is being cast with or without spell components. The is modifying the casting of the spell. Until WotC clarifies multiple aspects of Counterspell, Circle Magic, and Subtle Spell, there will be multiple aspects that are disputed with multiple valid interpretations. It has been proposed in this thread, that Circle Magic is not compatible with Subtle Spell. I don't subscribe to that belief but I can see the logic of it.
Because "with components" modifies the spell's casting, does not mean that it requires a specific caster to provide those components. I hope we get Sage Advice on Circle Magic because I don't think it's been thought out fully, particularly in terms of the interactions with Counterspell, concentration, and certain features.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Oh, i see what the confusion is... you think they're casting the main spell. They're not. I'll grant their casting, but they're just casting their power contribution, not the spell itself.
And the only way you can see a creature casting is if they are using components. So even if your interpretation was accurate, you still couldn't use them as a trigger, because you don't actually see them casting.
So, in the section on Casting a Circle Spell, they are casting but not casting? What? There is no "casting their power contribution". That's a thing that you made up. If the secondary spell casters are casting as part of participating in the casting of a Circle spell, they are casting the Circle spell. They are not the only one casting the spell and they may not be the one directing the spell but they are casting the spell.
If a group of people play football, you don't pick the quarterback from each and say they are playing and everyone else is just helping and can't be tackled because they aren't the player.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Right. We talked about that. That section does not explicitly state that you cannot take longer if you so choose. Why you would so choose is beyond me (or it was until Circle Magic arrived), but by that wording it remained a possibility (since a requirement is generally a minimum).
What Athanar90 posted is similar, but it has critical differences. The line '[w]hen you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action'. Casting a spell is definite. It is not 'you may cast a spell that has a casting time of one action'. There is an 'or' clause to that, but trying to extend the casting under normal circumstances does not appear to qualify as any of those options. That leaves us with the definite 'you cast'.
I realize that it is a subtle difference, but it is also a crucial one.
edit: Removed the fact that I felt it failed to answer the ultimate question about Circle Magic because Anthanar90 pointed out a different section, specific to Circle Magic, that does answer it.
THAT is the part I was missing. There is something that limits when the secondary caster can join.
Thank you.
Yes. I am now convinced that RAW states that you cannot sustain a spell when using Circle Magic over multiple turns to allow other people to join in later (and I was previously convinced you could not do it outside of Circle Magic by your other source).
Or, I suppose if I wanted to be obstinate and pedantic I could make some type of argument that it is still possible to sustain it, but now it can never be actually cast since the 'final secondary caster' never contributes because they are too late and unable to join, which renders such an action pointless. However, I am not taking that position (I am more making a joke and pointing out that absolute pedantry can lead to some pretty crazy places) because, as I said, it is pointless and whether interpreted one way or the other has zero significant impact on play.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but there is a particular problem with this interpretation.
A common mistake when it comes to Counterspell is not realizing that when you cast the Counterspell spell you are actually targeting a creature. You are not targeting the spell that is being cast, or the spellcasting process or anything like that. You are targeting a creature. According to the spell description, in order for that creature to be a valid target for the Counterspell spell, you must actually see that creature casting a spell.
Important Note: It does NOT say "when you see a creature that is casting a spell". That would have an entirely different meaning which is more aligned with your interpretation.
All primary + secondary casters are casting a Circle Spell togheter;
A Circle spell has spell components which are provided by the primary caster;
For these reasons i believe Reaction triggering when a creature casts a spell such as Counterspell triggers when the primary caster take a Magic action to initiate a Circle spell, not when secondary caster take the Magic action to contribute to the spell.
I disagree. They clearly aren't casting the spell - they don't need to know it, and they don't spend a spell slot of the level the spell is. They in no way satisfy the rules to be casting the spell. I will grant they are casting, but they are not 'casting that spell'. So at best you could counterspell their contribution, assuming they satisfied the trigger.
But as to the second point, you're dead wrong. RAW, to see a creature casting a spell is to see the creature using components. Even if they are casting the spell in the way you need to be true, you can't see them casting it, because they use no components. Whatever they are doing is not visibly casting a spell. So the counterspell trigger cannot be satisfied.
I will go out on a limb and sort of split the difference.
Under the RAW, as I see it, there is exactly one opportunity to Counterspell the Circle Magic; when the primary caster begins. They explicitly state that Counterspell is usable at this point.
By RAW the secondary casters cannot be the target of Counterspell.
First, there is no support that the secondary casters are using Verbal or Somatic Components. Saying the spell being cast requires the components is irrelevant because if the spell being cast requires Material Components we know they are not obligated to provide those. While we aren't told explicitly that they don't have to contribute Verbal or Somatic components, we are told that the primary caster 'provide[s] the spell’s components". It doesn't say Material Components, it says components, which would indicate all of them. That seems a pretty strong indication that the secondary casters do not have to provide even Verbal or Somatic Components.
Whether they can be considered to be 'casting the spell or not' doesn't matter because they do not fulfill the complete requirement of Counterspell, 'casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components'. We can split hairs and argue until the cows come home as to exactly what is going on, but& RAW seem pretty straightforward and clear.
Secondly, we are explicitly told that the primary caster can trigger Counterspell. The fact that nothing is said about the secondary casters would seem to strongly indicate that will not.
So that is the RAW. It even pretty strongly appears to be the RAI, but I will admit it is not absolutely rock solid set in stone. It is possible that errors and omissions contribute to giving an impression that the designers did not really intend. Until we get some kind of 'word of God' we won't have an answer to that.
So, people working from the position that there are errors and omissions (not a great place to work from, but I admit I have worked from there myself) can come to the conclusion that was not meant to be RAI
If someone is working from that position we don't have clear guidelines as to what Counterspell does when cast on the secondary caster. It seems the safest ruling is that they simply fail to contribute. In spells with longer Casting Times there is possibility to disrupt a spell through the secondary casters, but in spells that require a single Action, a secondary caster could successfully contribute to the spell and then be killed before the spell concludes and it would have no effect on the spell.
I suppose a DM could interpret that for a longer Casting Time spell things that affect the secondary caster affect the spell so an argument could be made that Counterspell disrupts the entire thing in that case, but they would be way out on a limb there. A much more reasonable interpretation at that point would simply be that they were 'locked out' before they even began to contribute.
tl;dr
RAW seem to support the idea that you can only Counterspell the primary caster when they initiate. It is possible to assume some stuff was accidentally left off during editing that allows Counterspell to be used on secondary casters, but that is a shaky position to work from, and even if such a thing occurred all it would probably have done was prevent them from contributing, not shut down the entire spell.
Naturally, anyone who doesn't like these conclusions who is DMing is absolutely 100% free to houserule however they like, so if you want Counterspell to be able to shut down Circle Magic, just say that it does. There's no need to try and deep dive and try to force the rules in a direction they don't seem designed to go.