So I am relatively new to DnD. I both play and DM. In a game I was playing the DM had a lich in the city who worked as a merchant. So long story short my character a necromancy wizard (literally the late healer meme) used Soul Cage [XGtE] and had a soul captured. He came across this lich who used Suggestion [PHB] to get my character to hand over the soul. To which I cast counterspell [PHB] he then said well the lich counterspells. Now I didn’t believe this is possible we were not in combat. I respect his decision as DM just would like to know other people’s opinion on the matter and whether this can actually happen as well for NPCs in my own campaign.

Provided the Lich had not already used its Reaction in that round, yes that's a valid thing to do. It sucks, but it can happen.

If there was a 3rd person with Counterspell known, they could also counter the counter to your counter.

Quote from obalamb >>

So I am relatively new to DnD. I both play and DM. In a game I was playing the DM had a lich in the city who worked as a merchant. So long story short my character a necromancy wizard (literally the late healer meme) used Soul Cage [XGtE] and had a soul captured. He came across this lich who used Suggestion [PHB] to get my character to hand over the soul. To which I cast counterspell [PHB] he then said well the lich counterspells. Now I didn’t believe this is possible we were not in combat. I respect his decision as DM just would like to know other people’s opinion on the matter and whether this can actually happen as well for NPCs in my own campaign.

Why would the lich be unable to do what you did, just because you were outside of combat ? You should both abide by the same rules, so either you both can, or you both can't.

If the issue is the lich counterspelling while in the middle of casting suggestion, the answer can be found in the Sage Advice Compendium:

Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn?

You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspellon him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspellbefore it can stop fireball.

Your DM played this absolutely right.

That all types of trippy. The third counterspell character (who for sum reason is literally Bauhmut) was in a bar.

So here's a follow up: I always thought you could only cast a spell and a cantrip in the same round. Is Counterspell the exception? Or does the ruling above not make sense?

It seems like you're asking for a sorcerer to know counterspell to lock down opposing spellcasters. And, in theory, a spellcaster could cast several counterspells in a single round.

Clarity from anyone would be appreciated.

Quote from MikeoftheGC >>

So here's a follow up: I always thought you could only cast a spell and a cantrip in the same round. Is Counterspell the exception? Or does the ruling above not make sense?

It seems like you're asking for a sorcerer to know counterspell to lock down opposing spellcasters. And, in theory, a spellcaster could cast several counterspells in a single round.

Clarity from anyone would be appreciated.

The spellcasting rule only applies to spells that have 1 action or bonus action as their casting time. Spells cast as a reaction ignore that. 

Quote from MikeoftheGC >>

So here's a follow up: I always thought you could only cast a spell and a cantrip in the same round. Is Counterspell the exception? Or does the ruling above not make sense?

It seems like you're asking for a sorcerer to know counterspell to lock down opposing spellcasters. And, in theory, a spellcaster could cast several counterspells in a single round.

Clarity from anyone would be appreciated.

It turns out, the restriction is all about bonus action casting. Are you casting a bonus action spell?

• If yes, then you may also cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action on your turn. That is all.
• If no, then you are free to cast any combination of spells your action economy allows for.

This seems like very odd timing. Under "adjudicating reaction timing" in the DMG, it says "generally" the reaction occurs after the trigger, but to rely on the description of the trigger in the specific action.

Counterspell says you attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. Which makes sense, because if the NPC completes the casting, then the spell takes effect - it's too late to be counterspelled at that point because magic takes effect instantaneously. After the spell is cast, you'd need dispel magic, not counterspell.

So, the lich starts casting Suggestion. The PC sees it happen and casts Counterspell, but the lich is still casting Suggestion. If the lich were to Counterspell the PC's Counterspell, they would have to stop casting Suggestion to do it.

So, *this guy's* ruling is that you can't counterspell AND cast your original spell at the same time. You'd need a third party involved to counterspell the counterspell. Otherwise you finish casting your original spell and the counterspell either took effect or didn't.

EDIT: Yeah, I know the Sage Advice was quoted above. It's wrong, because it makes no logical sense.

Quote from Maestrino >>

So, *this guy's* ruling is that you can't counterspell AND cast your original spell at the same time. You'd need a third party involved to counterspell the counterspell. Otherwise you finish casting your original spell and the counterspell either took effect or didn't.

There's no rule against interrupting the casting of a spell to do a reaction before finishing the spell.

Yes, it's a bit weird, but by RAW, it's totally legit. And I think it looks cool as hell. As the spell is only a reaction, and using only somatic components, I kind sort of see the lich hand-waving the counterspell away, while finishing casting their suggestion.

Yeah, it's weird. But it's also the specific and only purpose of the spell. Counterspell was written and intended as a spell buster. And you can bust the buster :)

 Hmmmm. I can see it technically, but I still lean toward saying "you can't cast two spells at once."

Suggestion is a fairly low-stakes spell, too. Heck, I don't even think it's strong enough to get a character to do something blatantly against their best interests (like handing over a valuable item to a lich). But that's a DM call - as a player I'd just say "no way do I find that a reasonable course of action. The lich can jump off a cliff."

If I was running it, either the lich would assume suggestion is a cheap-shot with a low chance of success, in which case it would just chuckle and let the issue drop after the counterspell. If the lich is dead serious (ha) about getting the captured soul I'd do this instead:

1. Lich casts suggestion.
2. PC counterspells it.
3. Lich gets annoyed, casts dominate monster.
4. PC can try to counterspell again, but it's a risk - do they know what spell is being cast? Do they know what level it is? Either way, now we roll initiative.

Note that the description for Suggestion specifically calls out the example of a knight giving her warhorse to the first beggar she encounters.  A trained knight would know that a trained warhorse costs hundreds of gold (don't quote PHB prices at me, those are 100% awful at all times for all reasons), that the beggar in question would be unable to care for the horse even slightly, and that she herself would end up in Deep Kaka for giving up such a valuable animal entrusted to her care to Random Street Yabo #1.  No knight in her right mind would ever consider such an action "reasonable"; even if she wished with all her heart to help the beggar, selling some of her equipment - or even the horse - to generate gold would be a vastly better option.

"Reasonable", in the case of this spell, means "I can do this thing without severe risk of death".  A PC would find handing over a valuable item to a lich to be a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Suggestion is a crazy powerful spell when used well.  The drawback, and what people often fail to take into account with Suggestion, is that once the Suggestion is done the effects of the spell dissipate and no longer have any hold.  The knight would realize that she was in Deep Kaka and likely attempt to immediately retrieve her horse any way she could.  Your PC would immediately realize they'd handed their bottled soul to someone else and be free to try and retrieve it any way they could.  Similarly, Suggesting to someone in a combat that they drop their weapon and surrender does not necessarily end a combat, because the Suggestion fades the minute they take the action and they're then free to pick their weapon right back up and go back to fighting.

As for Counterspell?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Yeah, logically the timing is weird for countering a counter, and some DMs do rule that Counterspell cannot target itself, but RAW there's nothing stopping it.  I can see why, as well - it's a very Mage Duel sort of thing, the "I stop your stopping me, HAH DX" battle of wills and egos that is any mage's duel.  Besides, it's Wizards.  Blue decks have been countering each other's counters to their counters for their counters since the flipping eighties, why would they put a stop to Counter Stacking now?

There is two ways that I can see this:

1. The first character starts to cast.
2. The second character reacts with a spell to interrupt the cast.
3. The first character reacts as well with another spell to interrupt the interruption and continue to cast the spell.

In that scenario, it's a character casting two spells at once with the original caster stacking a second spell to a currently-casting spell. ...but...

1. The first character casts a spell completely, but the resolution of the spell has not happened yet.
2. The second character reacts with a spell that deflects the cast spell.
3. The first character reacts with a spell the deflects the deflecting spell.

In that scenario, it's only one spell at a time and more like a game of ping-pong.

EDIT: ...but the description of Counterspell is specifically to "interrupt" a spell during casting. That description lends itself to the former scenario. The way around this is having a second source to cast the second spell at the same time like the multiple eyes of a Beholder. Maybe a house rule (not RAW) could be that a Counterspell (a Somatic spell) cast by the original caster in order to counter a Counterspell is possible only if the original spell is non-Somatic. Suggestion is non-Somatic. Otherwise, a somatic spell in-process would have to be interrupted by the caster to do the somatic Counterspell. A quick, instant somatic reaction during a non-somatic spell might be feasible even during a Concentration spell.

(A third way is, of course, a wizard did it.)

Let's say you declare as DM two spells cannot be cast at once so you cannot counterspell with your reaction while casting a spell yourself.

The inability to counterspell means if the enemy has a mage with them, your own spellcaster basically should just go home, because every turn you're just counterspelling the other and doing nothing else with your turns. It;s then just a stalemate until one of you runs out of spell slots for casting it. What a bore. Round after round and affecting nothing.

Now lets say you go with the Rules as they are written.

You can burn through spell slots faster by counterspelling counterspells but essentially something eventually happens - a spell will end up happening and affecting things, or you just all burn through higher slots much faster - so either way there is less "round after round" of nothing being achieved.

So going RAW just works out better and more fun.

"Oh but magic realism, you can't cast two spells at once really"

But, why not? Counterspell does not require concentration so it is not mentally taxing enough to distract your other casting. And it requires only a Somatic component. Somatic components require only 1 hand. So while one hand is doing the somatic component of your main spell and your voice is saying the magic words for the verbal component, you are free to use your other hand to make the somatic component for Counterspell to counter somebody else trying to Counterspell you.

If you're an INT caster, you're more than mentally capable of multitasking. And hey, if a wizard you did the mentally hard part already when you prepared the spell in your mind - that's why you prepare spells, after all.

If you're a WIS caster, doing this is all instinctual, just like all of your casting, and you don't really need to think much about it at all.

If you're a CHA caster, the magic just flows so effortlessly that casting two spells at once is just natural for you.

So no matter which type of caster this is no different than reading something aloud from memory while gesturing for emphasis with your right hand and then, when somebody nearby insults you to try and break your rhythm you instead raise your left hand and flip them the bird without stopping. This is basically what you're doing in the counterspell scenario - so, if it's physically possible in real life I see no reason why it would be impossible in a fantasy game where you can battle dragons and teleport to other dimensions.

Quote from Sigred >>

Provided the Lich had not already used its Reaction in that round, yes that's a valid thing to do. It sucks, but it can happen.

If there was a 3rd person with Counterspell known, they could also counter the counter to your counter.

 This is correct.

Quote from TexasDevin >>

Quote from MikeoftheGC >>

So here's a follow up: I always thought you could only cast a spell and a cantrip in the same round. Is Counterspell the exception? Or does the ruling above not make sense?

It seems like you're asking for a sorcerer to know counterspell to lock down opposing spellcasters. And, in theory, a spellcaster could cast several counterspells in a single round.

Clarity from anyone would be appreciated.

It turns out, the restriction is all about bonus action casting. Are you casting a bonus action spell?

• If yes, then you may also cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action on your turn. That is all.
• If no, then you are free to cast any combination of spells your action economy allows for.

 And this is correct.

Quote from Maestrino >>

This seems like very odd timing. Under "adjudicating reaction timing" in the DMG, it says "generally" the reaction occurs after the trigger, but to rely on the description of the trigger in the specific action.

Counterspell says you attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. Which makes sense, because if the NPC completes the casting, then the spell takes effect - it's too late to be counterspelled at that point because magic takes effect instantaneously. After the spell is cast, you'd need dispel magic, not counterspell.

So, the lich starts casting Suggestion. The PC sees it happen and casts Counterspell, but the lich is still casting Suggestion. If the lich were to Counterspell the PC's Counterspell, they would have to stop casting Suggestion to do it.

So, *this guy's* ruling is that you can't counterspell AND cast your original spell at the same time. You'd need a third party involved to counterspell the counterspell. Otherwise you finish casting your original spell and the counterspell either took effect or didn't.

EDIT: Yeah, I know the Sage Advice was quoted above. It's wrong, because it makes no logical sense.

 Please don't argue your opinion against the RAW in the rules and game mechanics forum. That is what house rules are for.

For what it's worth, the component for Counterspell is only somatic. I like to imagine the somatic motion is to raise your hand toward the caster as though to say, "Stop! I don't want to hear it!", and so if someone does that to you, you can do it right back to them, thereby shutting down their attempt to shut you down and you can continuing with your own spellcasting.

I'm going to have to agree to these last three replies. There are IC technicalities that make the RAW of the spell valid.

As a house rule, I'd require some extra concentration check if the original spell being cast is also somatic. A technicality is that using two hands to do different things (like rubbing your head and patting your tummy at the same time) usually takes quite a bit of concentration unless you have a lot of experience with doing it (like practicing for hours on a piano piece where the hands have really odd but individual parts, not just common syncopation EDIT: and lack of continued practice can cause a loss of expertise with the piece over time). With 5e streamlining, that would just be a complication of determining if both spells are somatic in RAW and requiring an additional roll during an instant reaction. So, I wouldn't expect RAW to have that. I feel that complicating things further is for house rules.