I do not know if I have understood correctly what is being raised in the last posts. However, if the situation is:
- A caster with a spell focus in one hand, and the other busy with something else (a shield or a weapon for example) casts fireball. - Another caster counterspell that fireball.
In that case, the first caster can't make the somatic components for counterspells since he don't have a free hand unless he have some feature that allows it (such as warcaster to make the somatic components with one hand occupied by a shield or weapon). He couldn't do it with the hand holding spell focus since counterspell has no material components. And he couldn't do it with the other one (except warcaster) because the hand is busy holding something else.
In the real game, however, hardly anyone cares about these things. It's just too messy to take all these variables into account in the middle of a fight, and it leads to a lot of pointless arguments. I used to apply these rules to the letter, but it has reached a point where I ignore it. Not because I think they should be ignored, but because there are a lot of players who haven't played with me before who are discussing it and I'm tired of having to explain step by step how magic works.
I do not know if I have understood correctly what is being raised in the last posts. However, if the situation is:
- A caster with a spell focus in one hand, and the other busy with something else (a shield or a weapon for example) casts fireball. - Another caster counterspell that fireball.
In that case, the first caster can't make the somatic components for counterspells since he don't have a free hand unless he have some feature that allows it (such as warcaster to make the somatic components with one hand occupied by a shield or weapon). He couldn't do it with the hand holding spell focus since counterspell has no material components. And he couldn't do it with the other one (except warcaster) because the hand is busy holding something else.
In the real game, however, hardly anyone cares about these things. It's just too messy to take all these variables into account in the middle of a fight, and it leads to a lot of pointless arguments. I used to apply these rules to the letter, but it has reached a point where I ignore it. Not because I think they should be ignored, but because there are a lot of players who haven't played with me before who are discussing it and I'm tired of having to explain step by step how magic works.
True unless they have warcaster
If instead of casting fireball the caster had sheathed their wand to cast cloudkill they may be àble to cast counterspell (is an empty hand performing a somatic component free?
RAW it is very complex and I do not think WOTC thought through it. The SAC says a wizard can cast fireball and counterspell someone trying to counterspell it but does not mention they have to guess that is what the counterspeller is doing nor mention they can only do so if they have a free hand, both of which are fairly big restrictions.
5th condition is the sorcerer meta-magic for subtle spell. But just as it would become more valuable if people start following these rules, the warcaster feat also becomes more valuable since there would be very few (if any) conditions that you could ever face this problem.
Yeah, this works too! So the sorcerer would cast either of the spells subtly (or both spells, lol) and that would take care of the somatic components of the subtle spell. I just had a crazy thought about a situation where the blue sorcerer casts fireball and the red wizard counterspells it. But then the blue sorcerer casts subtle counterspell to protect against the blue wizard's counterspell to his fireball because he doesn't have two free hands. At this point, red wizard #2 jumps in and counterspells the blue sorcerer. It's a triple counterspell! But since counterspell targets the caster and not the spell, I think red wizard #2's counterspell would effectively interrupt the caster, breaking not only the fireball, but also the subtle counterspell that red wizard #2 didn't even know was being cast!
I follow you. So when you are counterspelling the counterspell of your spell, you are effectively casting one spell in the middle of the other one. I'm with you and Ravnodaus on that part. And you can claim ambiguity because the rules don't come out and say one way or the other. But if holding a component pouch doesn't prevent the "free use of at least one hand" for making the somatic gestures to cast a SM spell, the rules don't give us any reason to believe that the act of making the somatic gestures for a spell prevents the free use of that same hand for making the somatic gestures of a counterspell. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe fireball wants you to wiggle your fingers and counterspell wants you to stick out your thumb. Or maybe they don't. Or maybe in the process of interrupting your casting, which counterspell explicitly does, you simply transition briefly to the counterspell somatic movements before seamlessly resuming the somatic gestures of the original spell. In that case, you would never be casting more than one spell at a time. Or maybe you're casting both at once. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.
I'm going to keep using one hand until a SAC entry or a rule tells me that one hand is not adequate.
EDIT: You know what, you have convinced me. Holding the components for fireball means that hand is not free for casting the S-only counterspell.
The Sage Advice Compendium has the following to say on reaction spells:
"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 counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."
Note that this answer makes no reference to Cornelius needing to have two hands free in order to cast Counterspell in the midst of casting a fireball. Oversight? Or is it possible for the hand holding the material component for fireball to also perform the actions for Counterspell? Or does the hand with the material component for fireball briefly let go, casts counterspell, then accesses the material component again to finish the original spell? Or perhaps the material component is only needed to initiate the casting and not throughtout?
The rules themselves do not break down the individual steps involved in casting a spell. It is possible that counterspell takes place as soon as a caster begins to cast a spell before they have pulled out any material components and thus counterspell works fine since the hand is free until the fireball spell is effectively cast? RAW doesn't say when or for how long the hand interacting with the material component needs to be in contact with that component when casting a spell.
The bottom line, as with most of these rules, is that it is up to the DM what they want to do.
However, this particular rules clarification just makes it clear that you can cast reaction spells on your turn and the specific example used is casting a counterspell against a counterspell in the midst of casting fireball. So the RAI would appear to be that it works fine.
You could make the case that handling material components doesn't prevent somatic-only casting, but we know for a fact that holding a spell focus does. A component pouch is specifically not a spell focus, but we are led to believe it operates the same way. So is there an upside to using a component pouch or the actual spell components in this case? Maybe? But I no longer think the rules lead us to that conclusion.
Whether you handle the material component or clasp it or palm it or wield it or clutch it or hold it, the act of doing whichever of those synonyms you prefer is what keeps the hand from being free for the somatic-only spells, as described in the SAC article I linked.
The Sage Advice Compendium has the following to say on reaction spells:
"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 counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."
Note that this answer makes no reference to Cornelius needing to have two hands free in order to cast Counterspell in the midst of casting a fireball. Oversight? Or is it possible for the hand holding the material component for fireball to also perform the actions for Counterspell? Or does the hand with the material component for fireball briefly let go, casts counterspell, then accesses the material component again to finish the original spell? Or perhaps the material component is only needed to initiate the casting and not throughtout?
Though SAC makes no reference to how Cornelious knows the spell being cast by his foe is counterspell. Where XGTE says
Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.
If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren’t associated with any class when they’re cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.
I am not sure if the SAC came out before XGTE but even if it did the section it appears is introduced with "This section expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player’s Handbookand theDungeon Master’s Guide, providing clarifications and new options." It then has a section on perceiving a caster at work and this one on identifying a spell and what to do if a spell is cast on an invalid target that are clearly "clarifications" and after an admission that the the DMG rule how AOE should apply on a grid requires a fair bit of on the spot adjudication and then offers two alternatives (the new options). Therefore even if the SAC came out before XGTE the rule on identifying a spell is not a new option (as there was not an option before the DMG & PHB were silent) so intent was that Cornellius would always need his reaction to identify that his foe was casting counterspell.
As I said there clearing some oversights when WOTC wroye this section.
The SAC entry about casting counterspell has nothing to do with identifying which spell is being cast. You can counterspell when you see somebody else casting a spell, without knowing what spell they are casting.
The rules don't necessarily mention that weapons are occupying hands for the duration either. Maybe the wielder is throwing it in the air for a few twirls here and there.
"Free Hand" isn't defined so does that mean we can cut off the hands of our opponents, string them around our neck and claim they're all free hands?
If a free hand is required for an action our best interpretation should be that its required for the duration of that action unless it states otherwise.
The SAC on casting a counterspell in reply to a counterspell doesn't tell us what "Cornelius" has in their hands. If Cornelius has nothing in their hands its perfectly reasonable to presume they could be casting Fireball with one and, when that spell is interrupted mid cast, use the other hand for the Counterspell gestures.
Here's the full text from the other relevant SAC:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
The first line tells us that you need to handle a component when casting a spell and the SAME RULE applies when using a focus.
The last line confirms that a spell with a Somatic component but no Material component, can't follow the same rule to use a hand with a focus or material component.
If we imagine a druid is casting Druid Grove with the consumed Mistletoe over a period of 10 minutes, using their action each turn to continue the casting and being incapable of casting a bonus action spell in the same turn, are we to imagine that the Mistletoe was consumed at the very beginning, or the Somatic components of the Druid Grove spell performed only in the first round, leaving them with the hand they were using to cast it as a "free hand" for any other times to cast reaction spells or perform object interactions? The best interpretation is that the hand is "occupied" and "in use" for the duration of the casting.
The same can be said for a 1 action spell that is "interrupted" before its 1 action casting time is complete and the rules in DMG actually note that these reactions "interrupt" their triggers if the reaction text notes them as doing so. To support this "interruption" note the Mage Slayer feat is different. It doesn't "interrupt" the spell casting. It specifically takes place AFTER the spell is cast, so if a wizard casts "Shield" as a reaction to an incoming hit, they specifically interrupt the hit and increase the AC it must overcome, then another opponent with the "Mage Slayer" feat couldn't argue they attack the player with a reaction before they complete the casting of "Shield". Mage Slayer: When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell Counterspell: which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell (and: "You attempt to interrupt", "the interrupted spell")
Spells cast as a Ready Action also have a special little niche where they are fully cast but then held. This could be interpreted, RAW, that the hand becomes free unless the spell requires a touch or attack with a weapon. RAW also say that such a spell could be counterspelled while it was being readied but not counterspelled when it's released, since its already cast and has been confirmed as RAI by Jeremy: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/893272974601502720
On the Xanathar rule, Jeremy has confirmed RAW and RAI that also you might see a spell being cast and decide to counter it, but you don't actually know what they're casting unless you use reaction to make an arcana check and then you don't have a reaction to counter it. So if the DM (and players) are playing this way, any casting should first note that its being cast and ask if anyone wants to react to the casting (which could be the arcana test to assess the spell or counter spell), once it's confirmed that no reaction is used, then the player or DM should say what spell is being cast: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/928766415263252480
HOWEVER, the majority of tables out there don't use those rules and everyone is simply presumed to know what spell is being cast and can determine if they take a reaction to that specific spell. While I believe it's also RAW that you need two free hands to cast fireball and counterspell a counterspell to it. the majority of tables out there are also likely to ignore that.
EDIT: Another relevant SAC "The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting"
I follow you. So when you are counterspelling the counterspell of your spell, you are effectively casting one spell in the middle of the other one. I'm with you and Ravnodaus on that part. And you can claim ambiguity because the rules don't come out and say one way or the other. But if holding a component pouch doesn't prevent the "free use of at least one hand" for making the somatic gestures to cast a SM spell, the rules don't give us any reason to believe that the act of making the somatic gestures for a spell prevents the free use of that same hand for making the somatic gestures of a counterspell. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe fireball wants you to wiggle your fingers and counterspell wants you to stick out your thumb. Or maybe they don't. Or maybe in the process of interrupting your casting, which counterspell explicitly does, you simply transition briefly to the counterspell somatic movements before seamlessly resuming the somatic gestures of the original spell. In that case, you would never be casting more than one spell at a time. Or maybe you're casting both at once. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.
I'm going to keep using one hand until a SAC entry or a rule tells me that one hand is not adequate.
EDIT: You know what, you have convinced me. Holding the components for fireball means that hand is not free for casting the S-only counterspell.
The Sage Advice Compendium has the following to say on reaction spells:
"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 counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."
Note that this answer makes no reference to Cornelius needing to have two hands free in order to cast Counterspell in the midst of casting a fireball. Oversight?
It isn't an oversight. It just isn't relevant. Notice it doesn't say he need one hand either. It isn't talking about hands at all.
Or is it possible for the hand holding the material component for fireball to also perform the actions for Counterspell? Or does the hand with the material component for fireball briefly let go, casts counterspell, then accesses the material component again to finish the original spell? Or perhaps the material component is only needed to initiate the casting and not throughtout?
The rules themselves do not break down the individual steps involved in casting a spell. It is possible that counterspell takes place as soon as a caster begins to cast a spell before they have pulled out any material components and thus counterspell works fine since the hand is free until the fireball spell is effectively cast? RAW doesn't say when or for how long the hand interacting with the material component needs to be in contact with that component when casting a spell.
Counterspell, specifically, says in happens mid cast. Many reaction resolve vefore or after their trigger. Counterspell specifically happen mid-cast. "in the process of casting"
The spell being cast is happening simultaneously and concurrently with the counterspell.
The bottom line, as with most of these rules, is that it is up to the DM what they want to do.
While yes, a DM can make any ruling, there still is a ruling that is in line with the actual rules and one that is less-so. It is generally a good idea for a DM to know he's deviating from the rules when he chooses to do this.
However, this particular rules clarification just makes it clear that you can cast reaction spells on your turn and the specific example used is casting a counterspell against a counterspell in the midst of casting fireball. So the RAI would appear to be that it works fine.
Counterspell timing is specified by the spell, and is atypical for reactions. Ot happens in the process of the trigger happening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
For the Quicken Spell shenanigans you could have it cost the same as Twin Spell, 1 sorcery point per level of the spell(minimum 2). Two fireballs are much more expensive now. They have now used 3 of their 5 sorcery points both 3rd levels spells (should they only be 5th level). One turn of nova then their taped pretty much.
For the Quicken Spell shenanigans you could have it cost the same as Twin Spell, 1 sorcery point per level of the spell(minimum 2). Two fireballs are much more expensive now. They have now used 3 of their 5 sorcery points both 3rd levels spells (should they only be 5th level). One turn of nova then their taped pretty much.
A 5th level spellcaster only has two 3rd level slots. No matter how you slice ir dice it they could only do it once.
And, 3 sorcery points isn't materially different enough from 2 sorcery points to justify allowing two fireballs on the same turn. That's only 1 extra sp!
Anyone would pay 1 sp to be able to double fireball. On the scales of cost v benefit, that's ALL benefit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A 5th level spellcaster only has two 3rd level slots. No matter how you slice if dice it they could only do it once
Yep, that is what I said "both 3rd level spells". And at 5th level it is hugely significant. They only have 5 points. They can only do it one turn whereas if they used it normally they can use it in two turns.
And, 3 sorcery points isn't materially different enough from 2 sorcery points to justify allowing two fireballs on the same turn. That's only 1 extra sp!
Anyone would pay 1 sp to be able to double fireball. On the scales of cost v benefit, that's ALL benefit.
Sure but they can only cast it as a bonus action once this way at 5th level as they only have 5 points. They could cast it twice the other way. If they get to level 12 and have that many Sorcery Points who cast normal 3rd level spells when you can upcast it? Say they do use their points to only cast Fireball at 3rd level, they can do that only one turn before having to use higher level slots which would then cost more Sorcery Points. First round is 2two 3rd level spells and 3 sorcery points (9 points left 1 3rd, 3 4th, 2 5th, 1 6th). Second round is one 4th, last 3rd and 3 more points (6 points 0 3rd, 2 4th, 2 5th, 1 6th). Third round is one 5th, one 4th and 4 points (2 points 0 3rd, 1 4th, 1 5th, 1 6th). Fourth round is use 5th level spell to get 7 points (8 now) use one 5th, one 4th level and 4 points (4 points 0 3rd, 1 4th, 0 5th, 1 6th). Fifth round is 6th level, 4th level and 4 points (0 points, 0 3rd, 0 4th, 0 5th, 0 6th). Now they are completely taped after 5 rounds using fire spells at level 12 where almost all monster have resistance to. Still an amazing set of turns that most likely have ended quite a few enemies non the less. The problem is that was only one encounter, what happens during the other 7 during that adventuring day. Say the used this technique only once per encounter they could only do that in 6 encounter and only for one round of nova without using anything higher then second level the rest of the turns.
Another point to this being a silly rule is persistent spells like Call Lightning, Flame Sphere, and Witch Bolt (less on Witch Bolt as the persistent damage is poop). You cast Call Lightning at 4th level and can now use your action to basically cast the spell again every turn then use Quicken Spell to cast Fireball as a bonus action. Using Call Lightning is not castings it on subsequent turns. Those have way more potential for damage then a one off Fireball that the monster most likely has resistance to and will save from the damage and that is doable RAW.
For the Quicken Spell shenanigans you could have it cost the same as Twin Spell, 1 sorcery point per level of the spell(minimum 2). Two fireballs are much more expensive now. They have now used 3 of their 5 sorcery points both 3rd levels spells (should they only be 5th level). One turn of nova then their taped pretty much.
wouldn't be the first time they'd be tapped out... pretty much all spell casters throw everything during the fight then cry about needing a long rest every god damn fight because they are tapped out. its always as if cantrips and level 1 and 2 spells were always sub par when they have the best spells in the first three levels.
seriously, i had a group wondering how much i could folow them with my wizard when they know i was out of spell slots, well no i had 2 first level slot left. and yet after 3 short rest i'm still not asking them for a long rest. they went mad. and i was still pulling my weight around. so everyone who cry out that casters and long rest needs to be changed, ever considered you are the problem, not the game mechanics ?
i have seen pretty rad turns in my campaigns due to high level casters abusing the two spells per turn and the way they are written. but there is one thing i have never been so sure about... after that first turn, pretty much everyone is always tapped out and if the fight lives on, they cry a river. i had a wizard friend with 2 levels f fighter, cast desintegrate, action surge desintegrate on a beholder. the rules were supposed to be clear about it, but since only sorcerer at that time could do bonus action spells, the whole section was written as if sorcerer were doing it. in the end they never contended with the reality that fighters can also cast two spells in a row or any spell casters for that matter if they take 2 levels of fighter.
i'd say... RAW (Rules as written) the bonus action ruling aplies only to sorcerers cause they are the only ones who can do it with meta magic.
RAI (rules as intended) nobody can cast two spells in a row, the second one is cantrip only reguardless of how or who or which order it was cast.
reguardless of how you see it, even jeremy crawford in sage advice contradicted himself by answering people. so i guess even he is confused about how it was worded.
in my campaign, i'm at a point where i dont care, its their ressources, spend them as much as they want, but if they think long rest are gonna happen every god damn fight, they will hit a wall as a spell caster. and i'm gonna laugh at them while i say "told you so" which, probably already hapened a few times where even the party had enough of the sorcer/wizard asking for sleep... after only 15 miutes of being awake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I follow you. So when you are counterspelling the counterspell of your spell, you are effectively casting one spell in the middle of the other one. I'm with you and Ravnodaus on that part. And you can claim ambiguity because the rules don't come out and say one way or the other. But if holding a component pouch doesn't prevent the "free use of at least one hand" for making the somatic gestures to cast a SM spell, the rules don't give us any reason to believe that the act of making the somatic gestures for a spell prevents the free use of that same hand for making the somatic gestures of a counterspell. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe fireball wants you to wiggle your fingers and counterspell wants you to stick out your thumb. Or maybe they don't. Or maybe in the process of interrupting your casting, which counterspell explicitly does, you simply transition briefly to the counterspell somatic movements before seamlessly resuming the somatic gestures of the original spell. In that case, you would never be casting more than one spell at a time. Or maybe you're casting both at once. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.
I'm going to keep using one hand until a SAC entry or a rule tells me that one hand is not adequate.
EDIT: You know what, you have convinced me. Holding the components for fireball means that hand is not free for casting the S-only counterspell.
The Sage Advice Compendium has the following to say on reaction spells:
"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 counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."
Note that this answer makes no reference to Cornelius needing to have two hands free in order to cast Counterspell in the midst of casting a fireball. Oversight?
It isn't an oversight. It just isn't relevant. Notice it doesn't say he need one hand either. It isn't talking about hands at all.
Except it is, the rules are clear about VSM... V for Verbal absolutely requires verbal component... you mean to tell me you can cast two spells simultaneously cutting your own verbal component adding another verbal component that doesn't have anything to do with the fist spell and yet be able to verbally comes back to the first spell ? same logic applies here for somatic spell casting... you cannot stop mid cast a spell putting it on hold until you have resolved the next spell. that would be akin to preparing a spell.
taking your own words and why you are contradicting yourself. you said counterspell happens, "Mid Cast" then that means you are not done casting the spell, if you are not done casting the spell, then you are in the middle of using that verbal component. and that material is still in your hand. because if you had finished, the fireball would of gone off and you'd be at the end of casting the spell, not in the middle of it.
heres your timeline... Start casting a spell... you pick your material in 1 hand, do the signs needed as your start chanting. Middle of the cast... you still haven't finished yet but opponent notices you doing it and thus counterspell by just yelling 1 word in the middle of it. end of the spell... if it hapenned, the material is consumed, your are finished your incantation and you have finished your signs. your fireball goes off !
your own text contradicts yourself. but while i ponder about this, counterspell is more useless then i thought... this means you cannot counterspell a counterspell if you spell that you are casting is verbal... you'd be interupting yourself...
food for thought ?!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The Sage Advice Compendium has the following to say on reaction spells:
"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 counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."
Note that this answer makes no reference to Cornelius needing to have two hands free in order to cast Counterspell in the midst of casting a fireball. Oversight? Or is it possible for the hand holding the material component for fireball to also perform the actions for Counterspell? Or does the hand with the material component for fireball briefly let go, casts counterspell, then accesses the material component again to finish the original spell? Or perhaps the material component is only needed to initiate the casting and not throughtout?
Though SAC makes no reference to how Cornelious knows the spell being cast by his foe is counterspell. Where XGTE says
Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.
If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren’t associated with any class when they’re cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.
I am not sure if the SAC came out before XGTE but even if it did the section it appears is introduced with "This section expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player’s Handbookand theDungeon Master’s Guide, providing clarifications and new options." It then has a section on perceiving a caster at work and this one on identifying a spell and what to do if a spell is cast on an invalid target that are clearly "clarifications" and after an admission that the the DMG rule how AOE should apply on a grid requires a fair bit of on the spot adjudication and then offers two alternatives (the new options). Therefore even if the SAC came out before XGTE the rule on identifying a spell is not a new option (as there was not an option before the DMG & PHB were silent) so intent was that Cornellius would always need his reaction to identify that his foe was casting counterspell.
As I said there clearing some oversights when WOTC wroye this section.
.
not much oversight.... the scroll section says that anyone who has a spell on his spell list, mind you spell list, not prepared spells or grimoire... spell list, then you dont need identification, you recognise that spell. applying same logic here, its easy to figure out that casters knows their shit. but its obvious a wizard wouldn'T know that a cleric is casting flame strike because it never will be on his spell list. but a wizard casting fireball would be easy to recognise for a fellow wizard who has the same spell in his spell list.
the reality is, it was written in XGTE because people who always play RAW (rules as written) always cry about the lack of ruling, what they want is a 1200 page books detailing in every single detail how the game is played including how to cast a friggin spell word by word. of course this will never happen. but WotC at that point needs to address those people and tend to their need adding an entire book of ruling for them to be happy. by the way, those same people completely ignore the fact that at the beginning of the book it strickly says that it is rules as written that you should play. so those same people just ignores rules when it suits them and cry a river about the lack of ruling later on.
as a DM, i always let my player know which spell is cast, otherwise it leads to pretty boring mind games... and critical role matt mercer clearly didn't care about the XGTE ruling either when they played against Vecna... i mean, any player will ust wait for the DM to call for the spell they are casting and the player just have to say, but i cancel that. at that point... you either start the mind game by saying "he's casting something do you react" and if he's waiting to know what the spell is, too late its done, it happens cancelling you missed your chance. which leads to them countering level 1 spells just because of enemies baiting. which leads to the players starting to them the same and now the DM is in the dark as well. you dont want that game to your players. thats boring as hell and yes this hapenned to me a lot. actually everytime i tryed to surprise my players with spells. so now if its on their list they know... if its not, too bad. and i do let my player do free perception check for this. or insight check to analyse the situation and anticipate the enemy strategy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
5th condition is the sorcerer meta-magic for subtle spell. But just as it would become more valuable if people start following these rules, the warcaster feat also becomes more valuable since there would be very few (if any) conditions that you could ever face this problem.
Yeah, this works too! So the sorcerer would cast either of the spells subtly (or both spells, lol) and that would take care of the somatic components of the subtle spell. I just had a crazy thought about a situation where the blue sorcerer casts fireball and the red wizard counterspells it. But then the blue sorcerer casts subtle counterspell to protect against the blue wizard's counterspell to his fireball because he doesn't have two free hands. At this point, red wizard #2 jumps in and counterspells the blue sorcerer. It's a triple counterspell! But since counterspell targets the caster and not the spell, I think red wizard #2's counterspell would effectively interrupt the caster, breaking not only the fireball, but also the subtle counterspell that red wizard #2 didn't even know was being cast!
🤯
Just a quick note. You can't counterspell a subtle counterspell, because it has no verbal, somatic nor material component.
An unofficial ruling from Jeremy Crawford says the following: "Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting."
Just a quick note. You can't counterspell a subtle counterspell, because it has no verbal, somatic nor material component.
That's right, and in this ridiculous example, it wouldn't matter because the original caster (the blue sorcerer) has produced a valid trigger in the form of casting fireball. The subtle counterspell would be interrupted along with the fireball (even if nobody other than the sorcerer knew about it) as a casualty of the counterspell process interrupting the blue sorcerer.
Welcome to the forums!
EDIT: That is to say that a caster casting a subtle spell absolutely can be counterspelled. The subtle spell just doesn't trigger counterspell, which is why my example needed the fireball to act as the trigger.
I do not know if I have understood correctly what is being raised in the last posts. However, if the situation is:
- A caster with a spell focus in one hand, and the other busy with something else (a shield or a weapon for example) casts fireball.
- Another caster counterspell that fireball.
In that case, the first caster can't make the somatic components for counterspells since he don't have a free hand unless he have some feature that allows it (such as warcaster to make the somatic components with one hand occupied by a shield or weapon). He couldn't do it with the hand holding spell focus since counterspell has no material components. And he couldn't do it with the other one (except warcaster) because the hand is busy holding something else.
In the real game, however, hardly anyone cares about these things. It's just too messy to take all these variables into account in the middle of a fight, and it leads to a lot of pointless arguments. I used to apply these rules to the letter, but it has reached a point where I ignore it. Not because I think they should be ignored, but because there are a lot of players who haven't played with me before who are discussing it and I'm tired of having to explain step by step how magic works.
True unless they have warcaster
If instead of casting fireball the caster had sheathed their wand to cast cloudkill they may be àble to cast counterspell (is an empty hand performing a somatic component free?
RAW it is very complex and I do not think WOTC thought through it. The SAC says a wizard can cast fireball and counterspell someone trying to counterspell it but does not mention they have to guess that is what the counterspeller is doing nor mention they can only do so if they have a free hand, both of which are fairly big restrictions.
Yeah, this works too! So the sorcerer would cast either of the spells subtly (or both spells, lol) and that would take care of the somatic components of the subtle spell. I just had a crazy thought about a situation where the blue sorcerer casts fireball and the red wizard counterspells it. But then the blue sorcerer casts subtle counterspell to protect against the blue wizard's counterspell to his fireball because he doesn't have two free hands. At this point, red wizard #2 jumps in and counterspells the blue sorcerer. It's a triple counterspell! But since counterspell targets the caster and not the spell, I think red wizard #2's counterspell would effectively interrupt the caster, breaking not only the fireball, but also the subtle counterspell that red wizard #2 didn't even know was being cast!
🤯
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The Sage Advice Compendium has the following to say on reaction spells:
"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 counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."
Note that this answer makes no reference to Cornelius needing to have two hands free in order to cast Counterspell in the midst of casting a fireball. Oversight? Or is it possible for the hand holding the material component for fireball to also perform the actions for Counterspell? Or does the hand with the material component for fireball briefly let go, casts counterspell, then accesses the material component again to finish the original spell? Or perhaps the material component is only needed to initiate the casting and not throughtout?
The rules themselves do not break down the individual steps involved in casting a spell. It is possible that counterspell takes place as soon as a caster begins to cast a spell before they have pulled out any material components and thus counterspell works fine since the hand is free until the fireball spell is effectively cast? RAW doesn't say when or for how long the hand interacting with the material component needs to be in contact with that component when casting a spell.
The bottom line, as with most of these rules, is that it is up to the DM what they want to do.
However, this particular rules clarification just makes it clear that you can cast reaction spells on your turn and the specific example used is casting a counterspell against a counterspell in the midst of casting fireball. So the RAI would appear to be that it works fine.
You could make the case that handling material components doesn't prevent somatic-only casting, but we know for a fact that holding a spell focus does. A component pouch is specifically not a spell focus, but we are led to believe it operates the same way. So is there an upside to using a component pouch or the actual spell components in this case? Maybe? But I no longer think the rules lead us to that conclusion.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You need to "handle" the focus - this doesn't necessarily mean hold and could be satisfied by touching it (with a free hand).
Edit// the actual component rules section does say "hold" though.
Whether you handle the material component or clasp it or palm it or wield it or clutch it or hold it, the act of doing whichever of those synonyms you prefer is what keeps the hand from being free for the somatic-only spells, as described in the SAC article I linked.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Though SAC makes no reference to how Cornelious knows the spell being cast by his foe is counterspell. Where XGTE says
I am not sure if the SAC came out before XGTE but even if it did the section it appears is introduced with "This section expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player’s Handbook and the Dungeon Master’s Guide, providing clarifications and new options." It then has a section on perceiving a caster at work and this one on identifying a spell and what to do if a spell is cast on an invalid target that are clearly "clarifications" and after an admission that the the DMG rule how AOE should apply on a grid requires a fair bit of on the spot adjudication and then offers two alternatives (the new options). Therefore even if the SAC came out before XGTE the rule on identifying a spell is not a new option (as there was not an option before the DMG & PHB were silent) so intent was that Cornellius would always need his reaction to identify that his foe was casting counterspell.
As I said there clearing some oversights when WOTC wroye this section.
.
The SAC entry about casting counterspell has nothing to do with identifying which spell is being cast. You can counterspell when you see somebody else casting a spell, without knowing what spell they are casting.
The rules don't necessarily mention that weapons are occupying hands for the duration either. Maybe the wielder is throwing it in the air for a few twirls here and there.
"Free Hand" isn't defined so does that mean we can cut off the hands of our opponents, string them around our neck and claim they're all free hands?
If a free hand is required for an action our best interpretation should be that its required for the duration of that action unless it states otherwise.
The SAC on casting a counterspell in reply to a counterspell doesn't tell us what "Cornelius" has in their hands. If Cornelius has nothing in their hands its perfectly reasonable to presume they could be casting Fireball with one and, when that spell is interrupted mid cast, use the other hand for the Counterspell gestures.
Here's the full text from the other relevant SAC:
The first line tells us that you need to handle a component when casting a spell and the SAME RULE applies when using a focus.
The last line confirms that a spell with a Somatic component but no Material component, can't follow the same rule to use a hand with a focus or material component.
If we imagine a druid is casting Druid Grove with the consumed Mistletoe over a period of 10 minutes, using their action each turn to continue the casting and being incapable of casting a bonus action spell in the same turn, are we to imagine that the Mistletoe was consumed at the very beginning, or the Somatic components of the Druid Grove spell performed only in the first round, leaving them with the hand they were using to cast it as a "free hand" for any other times to cast reaction spells or perform object interactions? The best interpretation is that the hand is "occupied" and "in use" for the duration of the casting.
The same can be said for a 1 action spell that is "interrupted" before its 1 action casting time is complete and the rules in DMG actually note that these reactions "interrupt" their triggers if the reaction text notes them as doing so. To support this "interruption" note the Mage Slayer feat is different. It doesn't "interrupt" the spell casting. It specifically takes place AFTER the spell is cast, so if a wizard casts "Shield" as a reaction to an incoming hit, they specifically interrupt the hit and increase the AC it must overcome, then another opponent with the "Mage Slayer" feat couldn't argue they attack the player with a reaction before they complete the casting of "Shield".
Mage Slayer: When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell
Counterspell: which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell (and: "You attempt to interrupt", "the interrupted spell")
Spells cast as a Ready Action also have a special little niche where they are fully cast but then held. This could be interpreted, RAW, that the hand becomes free unless the spell requires a touch or attack with a weapon. RAW also say that such a spell could be counterspelled while it was being readied but not counterspelled when it's released, since its already cast and has been confirmed as RAI by Jeremy: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/893272974601502720
On the Xanathar rule, Jeremy has confirmed RAW and RAI that also you might see a spell being cast and decide to counter it, but you don't actually know what they're casting unless you use reaction to make an arcana check and then you don't have a reaction to counter it. So if the DM (and players) are playing this way, any casting should first note that its being cast and ask if anyone wants to react to the casting (which could be the arcana test to assess the spell or counter spell), once it's confirmed that no reaction is used, then the player or DM should say what spell is being cast: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/928766415263252480
HOWEVER, the majority of tables out there don't use those rules and everyone is simply presumed to know what spell is being cast and can determine if they take a reaction to that specific spell. While I believe it's also RAW that you need two free hands to cast fireball and counterspell a counterspell to it. the majority of tables out there are also likely to ignore that.
EDIT: Another relevant SAC
"The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting"
It isn't an oversight. It just isn't relevant. Notice it doesn't say he need one hand either. It isn't talking about hands at all.
Counterspell, specifically, says in happens mid cast. Many reaction resolve vefore or after their trigger. Counterspell specifically happen mid-cast. "in the process of casting"
The spell being cast is happening simultaneously and concurrently with the counterspell.
While yes, a DM can make any ruling, there still is a ruling that is in line with the actual rules and one that is less-so. It is generally a good idea for a DM to know he's deviating from the rules when he chooses to do this.
Counterspell timing is specified by the spell, and is atypical for reactions. Ot happens in the process of the trigger happening.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
For the Quicken Spell shenanigans you could have it cost the same as Twin Spell, 1 sorcery point per level of the spell(minimum 2). Two fireballs are much more expensive now. They have now used 3 of their 5 sorcery points both 3rd levels spells (should they only be 5th level). One turn of nova then their taped pretty much.
A 5th level spellcaster only has two 3rd level slots. No matter how you slice ir dice it they could only do it once.
And, 3 sorcery points isn't materially different enough from 2 sorcery points to justify allowing two fireballs on the same turn. That's only 1 extra sp!
Anyone would pay 1 sp to be able to double fireball. On the scales of cost v benefit, that's ALL benefit.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This thread has 100k+ views :o
I have decided to make a bad signature
I worship JUSTIN BUCKNER
Thanks for reading!
Me and about 4 friends started Dnd at our school and apparently it's really popular now so yay!
Im gonna make a cult of Buckner thread soon.
AGAIN, Thanks for reading!
Another point to this being a silly rule is persistent spells like Call Lightning, Flame Sphere, and Witch Bolt (less on Witch Bolt as the persistent damage is poop). You cast Call Lightning at 4th level and can now use your action to basically cast the spell again every turn then use Quicken Spell to cast Fireball as a bonus action. Using Call Lightning is not castings it on subsequent turns. Those have way more potential for damage then a one off Fireball that the monster most likely has resistance to and will save from the damage and that is doable RAW.
wouldn't be the first time they'd be tapped out...
pretty much all spell casters throw everything during the fight then cry about needing a long rest every god damn fight because they are tapped out.
its always as if cantrips and level 1 and 2 spells were always sub par when they have the best spells in the first three levels.
seriously, i had a group wondering how much i could folow them with my wizard when they know i was out of spell slots, well no i had 2 first level slot left. and yet after 3 short rest i'm still not asking them for a long rest. they went mad. and i was still pulling my weight around. so everyone who cry out that casters and long rest needs to be changed, ever considered you are the problem, not the game mechanics ?
i have seen pretty rad turns in my campaigns due to high level casters abusing the two spells per turn and the way they are written.
but there is one thing i have never been so sure about... after that first turn, pretty much everyone is always tapped out and if the fight lives on, they cry a river.
i had a wizard friend with 2 levels f fighter, cast desintegrate, action surge desintegrate on a beholder. the rules were supposed to be clear about it, but since only sorcerer at that time could do bonus action spells, the whole section was written as if sorcerer were doing it. in the end they never contended with the reality that fighters can also cast two spells in a row or any spell casters for that matter if they take 2 levels of fighter.
i'd say...
RAW (Rules as written)
the bonus action ruling aplies only to sorcerers cause they are the only ones who can do it with meta magic.
RAI (rules as intended)
nobody can cast two spells in a row, the second one is cantrip only reguardless of how or who or which order it was cast.
reguardless of how you see it, even jeremy crawford in sage advice contradicted himself by answering people. so i guess even he is confused about how it was worded.
in my campaign, i'm at a point where i dont care, its their ressources, spend them as much as they want, but if they think long rest are gonna happen every god damn fight, they will hit a wall as a spell caster. and i'm gonna laugh at them while i say "told you so" which, probably already hapened a few times where even the party had enough of the sorcer/wizard asking for sleep... after only 15 miutes of being awake.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Except it is, the rules are clear about VSM...
V for Verbal absolutely requires verbal component... you mean to tell me you can cast two spells simultaneously cutting your own verbal component adding another verbal component that doesn't have anything to do with the fist spell and yet be able to verbally comes back to the first spell ? same logic applies here for somatic spell casting... you cannot stop mid cast a spell putting it on hold until you have resolved the next spell. that would be akin to preparing a spell.
taking your own words and why you are contradicting yourself.
you said counterspell happens, "Mid Cast" then that means you are not done casting the spell, if you are not done casting the spell, then you are in the middle of using that verbal component. and that material is still in your hand. because if you had finished, the fireball would of gone off and you'd be at the end of casting the spell, not in the middle of it.
heres your timeline...
Start casting a spell... you pick your material in 1 hand, do the signs needed as your start chanting.
Middle of the cast... you still haven't finished yet but opponent notices you doing it and thus counterspell by just yelling 1 word in the middle of it.
end of the spell... if it hapenned, the material is consumed, your are finished your incantation and you have finished your signs. your fireball goes off !
your own text contradicts yourself.
but while i ponder about this, counterspell is more useless then i thought... this means you cannot counterspell a counterspell if you spell that you are casting is verbal... you'd be interupting yourself...
food for thought ?!!
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
not much oversight.... the scroll section says that anyone who has a spell on his spell list, mind you spell list, not prepared spells or grimoire... spell list, then you dont need identification, you recognise that spell. applying same logic here, its easy to figure out that casters knows their shit. but its obvious a wizard wouldn'T know that a cleric is casting flame strike because it never will be on his spell list. but a wizard casting fireball would be easy to recognise for a fellow wizard who has the same spell in his spell list.
the reality is, it was written in XGTE because people who always play RAW (rules as written) always cry about the lack of ruling, what they want is a 1200 page books detailing in every single detail how the game is played including how to cast a friggin spell word by word. of course this will never happen. but WotC at that point needs to address those people and tend to their need adding an entire book of ruling for them to be happy. by the way, those same people completely ignore the fact that at the beginning of the book it strickly says that it is rules as written that you should play. so those same people just ignores rules when it suits them and cry a river about the lack of ruling later on.
as a DM, i always let my player know which spell is cast, otherwise it leads to pretty boring mind games...
and critical role matt mercer clearly didn't care about the XGTE ruling either when they played against Vecna...
i mean, any player will ust wait for the DM to call for the spell they are casting and the player just have to say, but i cancel that. at that point... you either start the mind game by saying "he's casting something do you react" and if he's waiting to know what the spell is, too late its done, it happens cancelling you missed your chance. which leads to them countering level 1 spells just because of enemies baiting. which leads to the players starting to them the same and now the DM is in the dark as well. you dont want that game to your players. thats boring as hell and yes this hapenned to me a lot. actually everytime i tryed to surprise my players with spells. so now if its on their list they know... if its not, too bad. and i do let my player do free perception check for this. or insight check to analyse the situation and anticipate the enemy strategy.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Just a quick note. You can't counterspell a subtle counterspell, because it has no verbal, somatic nor material component.
An unofficial ruling from Jeremy Crawford says the following: "Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting."
That's right, and in this ridiculous example, it wouldn't matter because the original caster (the blue sorcerer) has produced a valid trigger in the form of casting fireball. The subtle counterspell would be interrupted along with the fireball (even if nobody other than the sorcerer knew about it) as a casualty of the counterspell process interrupting the blue sorcerer.
Welcome to the forums!
EDIT: That is to say that a caster casting a subtle spell absolutely can be counterspelled. The subtle spell just doesn't trigger counterspell, which is why my example needed the fireball to act as the trigger.
"Not all those who wander are lost"