The sticking point in the recent discussion is whether or not you can pass on a trigger and then later on come back and claim to react to the same trigger after you've already passed on it and some time has gone by. Does this trigger still exist, and if so, can you make the decision to accept or pass on the same trigger more than once? Neither of those ideas align with the RAW imo.
In truth, my understanding is that this is a contentious issue for Attacks of Opportunities as well. For example. If a monster tries to flee it will trigger attacks of opportunity from anyone in melee range of it. So lets say there are two combatants in melee with the monster. It flees and now they want to use their reactions for Attacks of Opportunity. This can be important because if the first attack of opportunity hits and kills the monster then it becomes a question of if the other player used their reaction despite no longer having a living monster to strike at.
AFAIK, I don't think the written rules have directly addressed the question anywhere. However, we do have Xanathar's Guide to Everything - simultaneous effects:
If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster's turn, the person at the game table-whether player or DM-who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character's turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.
That could be used to suggest that multiple reactions must be stated together and then the player taking the turn decides which reaction (counterspell) they face first with any subsequent, but unnecessary, counterspells having spent both the spell slot and reaction despite it already taking place. There's also the SRD p91 note that a reaction is "an instant response to a trigger" and counterspell states "When you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". These could all add to the notion that if multiple reactions are to respond to the same trigger, then they must be declared before each is resolved (or countered).
However, the argument on the other hand is that Counterspell "Interrupts" the casting of a spell, which means the casting is still taking place for the duration of the attempt to counter it. Likewise, an Attack of Opportunity interrupts the target's movement and takes place before the target moves away. The other importance here is that once the Attack of Opportunity has completed, the target is still within the 5' space it started yet there's no obligation for it to continue and carry out the movement that puts it beyond melee range. It can choose to remain in the same space or even move around the attacker, remaining in melee range. The same is true if they take part of their movement and are the victim of a trap. There is no obligation to attempt the completion of their original intended movement or actions. They are able to respond and change in response to events as they occur. This is all with regards to a player in their own turn but it still suggests that players can alter their intents upon the reactions of other players.
Since the fireball spell is considered to be "interrupted" and remains in the process of being cast when the initial counterspell to it has been resolved and potentially failed. It stands to some reason that it remains a valid target for counterspell from another caster with the slot, the spell and a reaction to spend, even if they didn't state their intent to attempt a counterspell before the first counterspell was attempted.
IMHO it's a DM's decision on how they want to run their game, be it for gambling reactions against the threat of the reaction being wasted because another reaction prevented it's need or the build up from one player failing to do something with their reaction and another player coming through after the failure to potentially save the day.
P.S. There is a third option that the reactions must be declared before they are resolved in order BUT because there is an order to them, if the first counterspell succeeds then the second is neither considered to have been cast, nor the reaction spent, because there was no longer a valid target or trigger when it came to that player's turn in the reaction order.
And this is where we get into the technicalities of "Subtle Spell". Subtle spell effectively means that a spell is cast without Somatic or Verbal components - The name is the only part that implies the casting might be imperceptible to mundane notice but the description doesn't ensure it's imperceptible.
Just want to point out that the Sage Advice Compendium has a ruling on this, a V S spell altered by SubtleSpell is impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast and therefore is not valid target for counterspell .
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
Wouldn't be impossible for someone under the effects of detect magic but sure, in a more general sense, not possible with normal senses.
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.
And this is where we get into the technicalities of "Subtle Spell". Subtle spell effectively means that a spell is cast without Somatic or Verbal components - The name is the only part that implies the casting might be imperceptible to mundane notice but the description doesn't ensure it's imperceptible.
Just want to point out that the Sage Advice Compendium has a ruling on this, a V S spell altered by SubtleSpell is impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast and therefore is not valid target for counterspell .
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
Wouldn't be impossible for someone under the effects of detect magic but sure, in a more general sense, not possible with normal senses.
Why would someone under the effect of detect magic perceive a spell being cast more anymore than someone without?
And this is where we get into the technicalities of "Subtle Spell". Subtle spell effectively means that a spell is cast without Somatic or Verbal components - The name is the only part that implies the casting might be imperceptible to mundane notice but the description doesn't ensure it's imperceptible.
Just want to point out that the Sage Advice Compendium has a ruling on this, a V S spell altered by SubtleSpell is impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast and therefore is not valid target for counterspell .
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
Wouldn't be impossible for someone under the effects of detect magic but sure, in a more general sense, not possible with normal senses.
Why would someone under the effect of detect magic perceive a spell being cast more anymore than someone without?
Because of what the spell does.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you."
You can detect the presence of magic. Spells are magic.
Similarly, if you were actively reading their thoughts you could counterspell them too.
Any specific extrasensory means of knowing that the creature you're looking at is casting a spell at that exact moment is sufficient to specific v general the normal way it'd work out here.
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.
I feel like I've seen some Sage Advice or something that supports your idea although in my opinion there is no magic in the environment to detect until after the spell has been cast.
Wouldn't be impossible for someone under the effects of detect magic but sure, in a more general sense, not possible with normal senses.
Detect magic doesn't give "see" unless you spend an action, and counterspell requires vision.
You have to see the target. Which is a creature. Which you can do.
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.
Wouldn't be impossible for someone under the effects of detect magic but sure, in a more general sense, not possible with normal senses.
Detect magic doesn't give "see" unless you spend an action, and counterspell requires vision.
You have to see the target. Which is a creature. Which you can do.
You have to see the target casting a spell. Which you aren't seeing.
You can see them fine. Subtle spell doesn't make you invisible.
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.
You can see them fine. Subtle spell doesn't make you invisible.
You have to see them casting a spell. Them just standing there doesn't trigger counterspell.
I'm not sure what your objection is. You keep repeating the same thing. They CAN see them. The spellcaster is very visible.
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.
You can see them fine. Subtle spell doesn't make you invisible.
You have to see them casting a spell. Them just standing there doesn't trigger counterspell.
I'm not sure what your objection is. You keep repeating the same thing. They CAN see them. The spellcaster is very visible.
The spellcaster is visible. The fact that they are casting a spell is not, and because detect magic doesn't grant vision unless you take your action to see auras, it doesn't solve that problem.
You can see them fine. Subtle spell doesn't make you invisible.
You have to see them casting a spell. Them just standing there doesn't trigger counterspell.
I'm not sure what your objection is. You keep repeating the same thing. They CAN see them. The spellcaster is very visible.
The spellcaster is visible. The fact that they are casting a spell is not, and because detect magic doesn't grant vision, it doesn't solve that problem.
You can see the creature, within 60ft, casting the spell. The creature is the target. The creature.
But, to your point, detect magic is sight based. Idk what your objection about it is even if you did need to see the magic.
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 duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you."
You can detect the presence of magic. Spells are magic.
But there's no magic during spellcasting component process, magic come into being after the casting time is achieved so there's nothing to detect at this point.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you."
You can detect the presence of magic. Spells are magic.
But there's no magic during spellcasting component process, magic come into being after the casting time is achieved so there's nothing to detect at this point.
Idk, detect magic says you can sense magic. Spells are magic. You got a rules quote that says spells being cast aren't magic? That'd be super interesting, not at all what you'd expect intuitively.
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.
Idk, detect magic says you can sense magic. Spells are magic. You got a rules quote that says spells being cast aren't magic? That'd be super interesting, not at all what you'd expect intuitively.
A spell that has been cast is definitely magic. A spell in the process of being cast is... unclear.
You can see the creature, within 60ft, casting the spell. The creature is the target. The creature.
The trigger is that you see a creature casting a spell. That means you need to actually see the action of casting a spell.
You never needed to "see the action" of casting a spell. Otherwise you couldn't counterpell spells that only have a verbal component.
You need to see the creature. The creature who is casting the spell.
Why? Because the spell isn't the target. You don't need to see the spell. You need to see the creature. They're the target.
Interestingly though, because you can see magic while under the effects of detect magic, and spells are magic... as we've covered... you can see the creature casting the spell. You can even see the spell. Because... again... you can see magic.
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.
You got a rules quote that says spells being cast aren't magic? That'd be super interesting, not at all what you'd expect intuitively.
FWIW, there is this description in the sidebar called "The Weave of Magic" (this sidebar strikes me as flavor instead of actual game mechanics, but it's something):
Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave.
So here, the Detect Magic spell is described as glimpsing any changes to the structure of the threads of the weave (an interface to raw magic within the environment) that might indicate that there is a magic effect present. A magic effect is a result of a spell which has already been cast.
I think that I agree with "unclear" on the question of whether or not a spell in the process of being cast is magic.
You never needed to "see the action" of casting a spell. Otherwise you couldn't counterpell spells that only have a verbal component.
Trigger: "you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Yes, in fact, you have to see the action -- I guess it's possible to counterspell verbal component spells because you can see their lips moving (and this does mean that something like a mask would prevent counterspelling verbal spells).
I see. Your argument is:
The sticking point in the recent discussion is whether or not you can pass on a trigger and then later on come back and claim to react to the same trigger after you've already passed on it and some time has gone by. Does this trigger still exist, and if so, can you make the decision to accept or pass on the same trigger more than once? Neither of those ideas align with the RAW imo.
AFAIK, I don't think the written rules have directly addressed the question anywhere. However, we do have Xanathar's Guide to Everything - simultaneous effects:
However, the argument on the other hand is that Counterspell "Interrupts" the casting of a spell, which means the casting is still taking place for the duration of the attempt to counter it. Likewise, an Attack of Opportunity interrupts the target's movement and takes place before the target moves away. The other importance here is that once the Attack of Opportunity has completed, the target is still within the 5' space it started yet there's no obligation for it to continue and carry out the movement that puts it beyond melee range. It can choose to remain in the same space or even move around the attacker, remaining in melee range. The same is true if they take part of their movement and are the victim of a trap. There is no obligation to attempt the completion of their original intended movement or actions. They are able to respond and change in response to events as they occur. This is all with regards to a player in their own turn but it still suggests that players can alter their intents upon the reactions of other players.
Since the fireball spell is considered to be "interrupted" and remains in the process of being cast when the initial counterspell to it has been resolved and potentially failed. It stands to some reason that it remains a valid target for counterspell from another caster with the slot, the spell and a reaction to spend, even if they didn't state their intent to attempt a counterspell before the first counterspell was attempted.
IMHO it's a DM's decision on how they want to run their game, be it for gambling reactions against the threat of the reaction being wasted because another reaction prevented it's need or the build up from one player failing to do something with their reaction and another player coming through after the failure to potentially save the day.
P.S. There is a third option that the reactions must be declared before they are resolved in order BUT because there is an order to them, if the first counterspell succeeds then the second is neither considered to have been cast, nor the reaction spent, because there was no longer a valid target or trigger when it came to that player's turn in the reaction order.
Wouldn't be impossible for someone under the effects of detect magic but sure, in a more general sense, not possible with normal senses.
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.
Why would someone under the effect of detect magic perceive a spell being cast more anymore than someone without?
Because of what the spell does.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you."
You can detect the presence of magic. Spells are magic.
Similarly, if you were actively reading their thoughts you could counterspell them too.
Any specific extrasensory means of knowing that the creature you're looking at is casting a spell at that exact moment is sufficient to specific v general the normal way it'd work out here.
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.
I feel like I've seen some Sage Advice or something that supports your idea although in my opinion there is no magic in the environment to detect until after the spell has been cast.
Detect magic doesn't give "see" unless you spend an action, and counterspell requires vision.
You have to see the target. Which is a creature. Which you can do.
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.
You have to see the target casting a spell. Which you aren't seeing.
You can see them fine. Subtle spell doesn't make you invisible.
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.
You have to see them casting a spell. Them just standing there doesn't trigger counterspell.
I'm not sure what your objection is. You keep repeating the same thing. They CAN see them. The spellcaster is very visible.
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.
The spellcaster is visible. The fact that they are casting a spell is not, and because detect magic doesn't grant vision unless you take your action to see auras, it doesn't solve that problem.
You can see the creature, within 60ft, casting the spell. The creature is the target. The creature.
But, to your point, detect magic is sight based. Idk what your objection about it is even if you did need to see the magic.
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.
The trigger is that you see a creature casting a spell. That means you need to actually see the action of casting a spell.
But there's no magic during spellcasting component process, magic come into being after the casting time is achieved so there's nothing to detect at this point.
Idk, detect magic says you can sense magic. Spells are magic. You got a rules quote that says spells being cast aren't magic? That'd be super interesting, not at all what you'd expect intuitively.
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 spell that has been cast is definitely magic. A spell in the process of being cast is... unclear.
You never needed to "see the action" of casting a spell. Otherwise you couldn't counterpell spells that only have a verbal component.
You need to see the creature. The creature who is casting the spell.
Why? Because the spell isn't the target. You don't need to see the spell. You need to see the creature. They're the target.
Interestingly though, because you can see magic while under the effects of detect magic, and spells are magic... as we've covered... you can see the creature casting the spell. You can even see the spell. Because... again... you can see magic.
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.
FWIW, there is this description in the sidebar called "The Weave of Magic" (this sidebar strikes me as flavor instead of actual game mechanics, but it's something):
So here, the Detect Magic spell is described as glimpsing any changes to the structure of the threads of the weave (an interface to raw magic within the environment) that might indicate that there is a magic effect present. A magic effect is a result of a spell which has already been cast.
I think that I agree with "unclear" on the question of whether or not a spell in the process of being cast is magic.
Trigger: "you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Yes, in fact, you have to see the action -- I guess it's possible to counterspell verbal component spells because you can see their lips moving (and this does mean that something like a mask would prevent counterspelling verbal spells).