Yeah, if we carry the literalness of absolutely needing to visually see the creature casting a spell then a spell with only a "V" component means a caster can announce "I'm covering my mouth as I cast" and suddenly you can HEAR them casting but you can't SEE them casting. I recall the "Blue Raja" from the movie "Mystery Men" using his cloak to hide his fork throws. A DnD caster could similarly argue that they cover direct sight of their casting hand for a Somatic spell to prevent anyone "Seeing" the casting... However that one might actually be considered by a DM and I could see a DM calling for a "Slight of Hand" or even "Performance" roll against perception or intuition in order to hide their casting.
The visual aspect is to see the creature. The casting aspect is to KNOW the creature you can see is casting a spell.
On the discussion of if "Detect Magic" could detect the mere "Casting" of a spell. I would wonder what exactly the "Counterspell" spell is doing since it causes a spell to fail as it's being cast and the casting creature looses the spell slot, sorcerer points and any other associated "magical" type aspects as though they had fully spent the energies. I'd also note that you can cast a spell as a readied action and it involves fully casting the spell but then holding it's energies. Take this and then compare to the Sage Advice for determining if something is magical and we find the note "Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?". Since we know the mere casting of a spell is fueled by the use of spell slots either spent for a readied action or in casting a spell that fails due to counterspell, it's pretty good evidence that the casting aspect itself is magical.
Again, I think it comes down to Sage Advice: "It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells".
Reality is that players and opponents could absolutely use abilities, magical or mundane means to hide or obscure their casting and the DM will determine the situation, feasibility and any rolls they want made if they allow the attempt. That situation could include additional way to detect the spell from detect magic, feats such as blind sense or mind/thought reading.
Yeah, if we carry the literalness of absolutely needing to visually see the creature casting a spell then a spell with only a "V" component means a caster can announce "I'm covering my mouth as I cast" and suddenly you can HEAR them casting but you can't SEE them casting.
While I don't think it's RAI, it does appear to be RAW.
Yeah, if we carry the literalness of absolutely needing to visually see the creature casting a spell then a spell with only a "V" component means a caster can announce "I'm covering my mouth as I cast" and suddenly you can HEAR them casting but you can't SEE them casting.
While I don't think it's RAI, it does appear to be RAW.
The exact quote is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell" I think there's a good argument to be made for the wording noting that you can see the caster but the "see" portion not extending over to the "casting a spell". Particularly with the clarification of 60 feet. You don't exactly "see" the 60 feet, this is simply a range condition noted in the specifics of the trigger, that the target is "casting a spell" is also another condition.
Sage Advice notes: 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.
Here we see them note that opponents can't "perceive" the spell being cast before switching back to use of the word "see". This might be the closest we come to RAW confirming a need to "perceive" the casting but not necessarily "see" it.
Then we have JC's quote: "Do you notice a spell being cast? The answer is based on whether you noticed any of the spellcasting components: V, S, or M."
Here he simply pulls it to the question of if you "notice" a spell being cast and if you "notice" any of the spellcasting components.
The visual aspect is to see the creature. The casting aspect is to KNOW the creature you can see is casting a spell.
This seems the most correct to me. You must see the creature [ that you know is ] casting a spell. Like, you are reacting to something. "Oh no! That guys is casting a spell! I'd better do something!" I don't think that you need to see him moving in any specific way, but you do need to know that he is casting a spell or else there's nothing to react to.
On the discussion of if "Detect Magic" could detect the mere "Casting" of a spell. I would wonder what exactly the "Counterspell" spell is doing since it causes a spell to fail as it's being cast and the casting creature looses the spell slot, sorcerer points and any other associated "magical" type aspects as though they had fully spent the energies. I'd also note that you can cast a spell as a readied action and it involves fully casting the spell but then holding it's energies. Take this and then compare to the Sage Advice for determining if something is magical and we find the note "Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?". Since we know the mere casting of a spell is fueled by the use of spell slots either spent for a readied action or in casting a spell that fails due to counterspell, it's pretty good evidence that the casting aspect itself is magical.
I disagree with this conclusion. First, Sage Advice should always be taken with a grain of salt. But even within that framework, from Chapter 10, we have: "When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot". But then we also have: "When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot." There is no magical effect produced until the process of casting the spell has completed.
I've seen that in some playtesting for future rules they've considered tweaking Counterspell such that it does NOT cause the caster to lose their spell slot -- probably for that exact reason. It's currently inconsistent with the rest of the rules. Really, the description for Counterspell should be changed so that it is still cast while the other spell is still in the process of being cast, but it doesn't "interrupt" the casting per se, but instead acts like a giant heavy blanket being thrown over a small explosive so that the instant the explosion occurs, the explosive effect is completely stifled, neutralized and prevented from coming into existence -- thus allowing the spell casting process to complete and the spell slot to be expended, but the effect fizzles and nothing happens, "countering" the desired effect. But who knows if they'll ever get there.
As for Ready Action spells -- those spells have already been completely cast, but the effect is held and delayed before being released -- so that should be detectable as 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).
We seem to be disagreeing again on grammar? The trigger requires that you see the creature. And it requires that while you see the creature it be casting a spell. But it doesn't require that you see the spell. Because of what it literally says, you know, with correct grammatical understanding applied. And, also, you don't target the spell. You target the creature.
So, you must see the creature, and that creature must be casting a spell. but that trigger doesn't say you need to see the spell. It just doesn't. You can want it to say that, but that isn't what that sentence means.
If they wanted the spell to be the thing you needed to see, it'd have been worded like: "you see a spell being cast by a creature within 60 feet of you"
See how this rephrasing makes the subject of the requirement of your sight the spell? Instead, they chose the subject for your required sight to be the creature. Notably, that is because the target of the spell is the creature. And you typically need to see the target of the spell.
Here is a question for you to answer to yourself: What does it look like for a creature to subtly cast a spell? It looks like them not doing anything right? Well, then that is what it looked like for them to cast a spell. So if a creature you're looking at casts a subtle spell and just stands there. you did watch them cast a spell. so you were seeing a creature withing 60ft casting a spell.
The only reason you couldn't counterspell at the moment would be if you didn't know that is what you were looking at. But if you had detect magic up, or detect thoughts, you very well might know that is precisely what they're doing. Because otherwise you meet the trigger requirements for counterspell. You see them, they're within 60ft, and they're casting a spell. If you can be alerted to trigger your counterspell at that exact right moment, you're good to go. Why? Because the creature is the target. Not the spell.
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).
We seem to be disagreeing again on grammar? The trigger requires that you see the creature. And it requires that while you see the creature it be casting a spell. But it doesn't require that you see the spell. Because of what it literally says, you know, with correct grammatical understanding applied.
It doesn't require you to see the spell. It requires you to see the spellcasting. Because this is English, there's some question of operator precedence, but if you assume the other order you wind up unable to cast the spell at all unless you hadn't seen the creature before it started casting the spell.
"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.
Spells don't create magic effect during spellcasting but after it. If you have a rule quote saying spell release magic during casting i'd like to see one.
Without Sage Advice i could see place for argument that unless the caster is hidden, invisible or otherwise unseen, as long as it is casting a spell wether you can see the casting or not it would work because what you must see in the spell's trigger is the creature because a visible creature using Subtle Spell is still a creature you can see casting a spell.
But we have an official ruling that a Subtle Spell with no more material component is impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast for counterspell to be of use.So there's nothing to argue at this point really.
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.
Not actually, though as a practical issue it doesn't matter. Red wizard 2 cannot react to the subtle counterspell, but can react to the fireball, so the timing is
Blue sorcerer starts casting fireball
Red wizard #1 casts counterspell
Blue sorcerer casts counterspell (subtly)
Red wizard #2 cannot counter the counterspell (as it is subtle) so we resolve #3 (blue sorcerer finishes casting counterspell) and then #2 (red wizard is no longer casting counterspell)
#1 has not yet been resolved, so red wizard #2 can cast counterspell, which he does.
Counterspell is resolved.
If counterspell failed for some reason, fireball is resolved. Otherwise, the fireball fails.
Hey all,
It's a really interesting discussion, especially about the grammar of the RAW but I also think we're failing to take into account one major point in this discussion...
How exactly does RW2 perceive that counterspell from RW1 failed as a result of the BW subtle counterspell and then decides to cast counterspell in the less than 6 second window?
Going back to the example that I think we've all been using:
Blue Sorcerer starts casting fireball.
Red Wizard #1 casts counterspell.
Blue Sorcerer casts counterspell (subtly).
Red Wizard #2 cannot counter the counterspell (as it is subtle) .
Red Wizard #2 casts counterspell, on Blue sorcerer.
Counterspell's wording states:
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.
Let's go with the more liberal interpretation of Counterspell where this means that in a 6 second round other players have between 1-4 seconds to enact their own counterspells (and for simplicity ignore movement and bonus actions which can also eat up part of that 6 seconds). I say 1-4 seconds because in second 1 Blue Wizard starts casting the spell (and it would be impossible for either wizard to react at that point as they would have to have prior knowledge that Blue Sorcerer was going to cast the fireball) and in second 6 the spell is complete and the fireball effect happens.
This means that Red Wizard 1 casts counterspell using a reaction and then Blue Sorcerer does the a subtle counterspell to that. Lets be generous and say that each reaction onlytook 1 second (if you think you can do more than flip the bird at someone in 1 second, then you must have super speed...).
That still leaves, if we're being generous, a 2 second window for Red Wizard 2 to counterspell. If we're going with the more liberal interpretation where counterspell can be cast at anytime during the original spell's casting then yes, a 1 second reaction counterspell could still fit in that time frame.
My problem with this is that I'm asking myself "what is triggering RW2 to counterspell?"
Either:
RW2 is casting counterspell because they perceive BS is casting fireball, and not because RW1's counterspell didn't work. Or,
RW2 waited until the first set of counterspells were resolved, and is now trying to counterspell because RW1's failed.
If it's scenario 1 then RW2 should be stating their intent to counterspell right away. If they didn't, then the DM shouldn't allow them to claim a counterspell after the fact. They need to have stated it right away with RW1 because there would be no (non meta-gaming) reason why they wold be holding their counterspell until second 4 in the round (or until RW1's counterspell didn't work).
If it's scenario 2 then how is RW2 perceiving that RW1's counterspell didn't work in order to trigger their reaction of a counterspell? The only way to know RW1's counter didn't work is if the spell completes, at which point it's impossible to then counter the fireball. And even if you want to say that there are two seconds left for RW2's counterspell to be used, they would have to be paying attention to RW1's reaction and for RW1 to get a look of confusion or frustration on their face for RW2 to then realize that RW1's counter didn't work. At which point the DM should probably say "No, not going to happen."
While I appreciate the attention and discussion over the wording of Counterspell, at some point players and DMs have to look at the entirety of the situation to see if it makes any sense whatsoever.
It really doesn't matter whether it's when a player first perceives or is currently perceiving a caster cast a spell. Time is finite and only so many things can happen in a 6 second round.
How does a Wizard perceive a successful d20 check was made for History. Thus promoting his ability to take a reaction and cast silvery barbs?
Or how does he know if the people around him succeed on something like a save against, say, charm person or similar.
We could even ask how a wizard could perceive and have time to cast Silvery Barbs when a different spellcaster succeeded on their d20 check when they cast a Counterspell too.
The thing is, we don't need to know how the in universe characters detect these things. The game allows us to come up with explanations. It is fluff.
Just follow the mechanics of what the rules tell you they can do. Use your creative imagination to explain why they can do those things.
And you seem to have missed half the point of the reasoning...
It's not just about how a character detects/perceives something. It's about how a character detects/perceives something and acts in time.
In this specific example, sure RW2 can detect/perceive the first counterspell didn't work easily. As by your own reasoning, you can use any excuse. Maybe they had detect magic up and sensed the forces at work, maybe they did an arcana check and figured out the spell being cast, or maybe they heard RW1 shout an expletive when their counterspell failed... You're right. You can use any reason to explain this.
The problem is that if you take that route, you then have to also explain how the RW2, processed that information they just perceived, decided to act on the situation in whichever way, and then performed that action (especially since counterspell requiresa somatic component) in a 2 second or less period of time (again, 2 seconds or less if we're being generous).
Just because a character reacting to a situation takes an instant, that doesn't mean a re-action only takes an instant. When a warrior decides to take an Attack of Opportunity, their blade doesn't just materialize in the enemy. The character still has to swing the blade, and in D&D they still have to actually hit the enemy.
My personal opinion:
Personally I believe the rules should actually state that you can't interrupt a reaction. It makes no sense whatsoever in quick time frames that a player can interrupt a reaction that is in essence extremely speedy. In this scenario, the BS should not be able to cast counterspell subtly on RW1 when they cast counterspell (BS is too busy concentrating on casting fireball anyway, but they are able to react with a counterspell and actively apply metamagic on that?). But the rules say it's possible so that means it should be allowed?
The problems is that we're talking about magic and the rules for it are imaginary and somewhat arbitrary in their creation.
That's the reason there is a DM. There is a final arbiter about what is possible/feasible in the shared world and time being created collaboratively. Sometimes a DM just needs to say something is not possible, even if it's RAW, and a player will just need to accept that.
How does a Wizard perceive a successful d20 check was made for History. Thus promoting his ability to take a reaction and cast silvery barbs?
My interpretation is that he doesn't and thus cannot cast the spell, but that spell is a mess.
On the counterspell issue, RW#2 cannot perceive the counterspell but can perceive that BS is non longer casting (this does not require detect magic, the casting is visible). The question is whether a trigger is one-time (if you pass on reacting, you don't get to change your mind later), which was extensively argued about starting at around post 160.
Ironically, I think Silvery Barbs is relatively easy to explain.
In general it's just common terms and understanding for quick combat descriptions instead of using longer more immersive descriptions.
A character in game doesn't know what natural 20s or critical hits are (unless your world/universe includes those terms/concepts).
A DM will just say your enemy rolled a "Natural 20", or scored a "Critical Hit", because it's quicker than describing what that would look like in game. A DM could equally describe a critical hit as "Your enemy landed a blow on your party member and it looks like it's going to be a devastating hit that will do massive damage."
It's the Out of Character player that knows that all those descriptions mean a critical hit happened, and can choose for their in-game character to react and use Silvery Barbs.
We just all use Natural 20 and Critical Hit for efficiency purposes because Players (not Characters) exist both in game and out of it.
Ironically, I think Silvery Barbs is relatively easy to explain.
In general it's just common terms and understanding for quick combat descriptions instead of using longer more immersive descriptions.
A character in game doesn't know what natural 20s or critical hits are (unless your world/universe includes those terms/concepts).
A DM will just say your enemy rolled a "Natural 20", or scored a "Critical Hit", because it's quicker than describing what that would look like in game. A DM could equally describe a critical hit as "Your enemy landed a blow on your party member and it looks like it's going to be a devastating hit that will do massive damage."
It's the Out of Character player that knows that all those descriptions mean a critical hit happened, and can choose for their in-game character to react and use Silvery Barbs.
We just all use Natural 20 and Critical Hit for efficiency purposes because Players (not Characters) exist both in game and out of it.
If you described the blow critically striking them then the point of using silvery barbs is well past.
They have to react to the d20 check. Not the results if the check.
That's sorta my point. The fact that they know it succeeds isn't particularly obvious. And it doesn't need to be. Because the game doesn't care about that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I got quotes!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, if we carry the literalness of absolutely needing to visually see the creature casting a spell then a spell with only a "V" component means a caster can announce "I'm covering my mouth as I cast" and suddenly you can HEAR them casting but you can't SEE them casting. I recall the "Blue Raja" from the movie "Mystery Men" using his cloak to hide his fork throws. A DnD caster could similarly argue that they cover direct sight of their casting hand for a Somatic spell to prevent anyone "Seeing" the casting... However that one might actually be considered by a DM and I could see a DM calling for a "Slight of Hand" or even "Performance" roll against perception or intuition in order to hide their casting.
The visual aspect is to see the creature. The casting aspect is to KNOW the creature you can see is casting a spell.
On the discussion of if "Detect Magic" could detect the mere "Casting" of a spell. I would wonder what exactly the "Counterspell" spell is doing since it causes a spell to fail as it's being cast and the casting creature looses the spell slot, sorcerer points and any other associated "magical" type aspects as though they had fully spent the energies. I'd also note that you can cast a spell as a readied action and it involves fully casting the spell but then holding it's energies. Take this and then compare to the Sage Advice for determining if something is magical and we find the note "Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?". Since we know the mere casting of a spell is fueled by the use of spell slots either spent for a readied action or in casting a spell that fails due to counterspell, it's pretty good evidence that the casting aspect itself is magical.
Again, I think it comes down to Sage Advice: "It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells".
Reality is that players and opponents could absolutely use abilities, magical or mundane means to hide or obscure their casting and the DM will determine the situation, feasibility and any rolls they want made if they allow the attempt. That situation could include additional way to detect the spell from detect magic, feats such as blind sense or mind/thought reading.
While I don't think it's RAI, it does appear to be RAW.
The exact quote is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
I think there's a good argument to be made for the wording noting that you can see the caster but the "see" portion not extending over to the "casting a spell". Particularly with the clarification of 60 feet. You don't exactly "see" the 60 feet, this is simply a range condition noted in the specifics of the trigger, that the target is "casting a spell" is also another condition.
Sage Advice notes: 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.
Here we see them note that opponents can't "perceive" the spell being cast before switching back to use of the word "see". This might be the closest we come to RAW confirming a need to "perceive" the casting but not necessarily "see" it.
Then we have JC's quote: "Do you notice a spell being cast? The answer is based on whether you noticed any of the spellcasting components: V, S, or M."
Here he simply pulls it to the question of if you "notice" a spell being cast and if you "notice" any of the spellcasting components.
But for at least expanding on the "see" portion I'll quote JC for:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/704489177388191745 - "Spells don't care how your vision works. The sight required by a spell can be by any means"
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/859636277884399616 - "A creature with blindsight can effectively see within the radius of that sense"
With respect to the trigger for Counterspell:
This seems the most correct to me. You must see the creature [ that you know is ] casting a spell. Like, you are reacting to something. "Oh no! That guys is casting a spell! I'd better do something!" I don't think that you need to see him moving in any specific way, but you do need to know that he is casting a spell or else there's nothing to react to.
I disagree with this conclusion. First, Sage Advice should always be taken with a grain of salt. But even within that framework, from Chapter 10, we have: "When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot". But then we also have: "When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot." There is no magical effect produced until the process of casting the spell has completed.
I've seen that in some playtesting for future rules they've considered tweaking Counterspell such that it does NOT cause the caster to lose their spell slot -- probably for that exact reason. It's currently inconsistent with the rest of the rules. Really, the description for Counterspell should be changed so that it is still cast while the other spell is still in the process of being cast, but it doesn't "interrupt" the casting per se, but instead acts like a giant heavy blanket being thrown over a small explosive so that the instant the explosion occurs, the explosive effect is completely stifled, neutralized and prevented from coming into existence -- thus allowing the spell casting process to complete and the spell slot to be expended, but the effect fizzles and nothing happens, "countering" the desired effect. But who knows if they'll ever get there.
As for Ready Action spells -- those spells have already been completely cast, but the effect is held and delayed before being released -- so that should be detectable as magic.
We seem to be disagreeing again on grammar? The trigger requires that you see the creature. And it requires that while you see the creature it be casting a spell. But it doesn't require that you see the spell. Because of what it literally says, you know, with correct grammatical understanding applied. And, also, you don't target the spell. You target the creature.
So, you must see the creature, and that creature must be casting a spell. but that trigger doesn't say you need to see the spell. It just doesn't. You can want it to say that, but that isn't what that sentence means.
If they wanted the spell to be the thing you needed to see, it'd have been worded like: "you see a spell being cast by a creature within 60 feet of you"
See how this rephrasing makes the subject of the requirement of your sight the spell? Instead, they chose the subject for your required sight to be the creature. Notably, that is because the target of the spell is the creature. And you typically need to see the target of the spell.
Here is a question for you to answer to yourself: What does it look like for a creature to subtly cast a spell? It looks like them not doing anything right? Well, then that is what it looked like for them to cast a spell. So if a creature you're looking at casts a subtle spell and just stands there. you did watch them cast a spell. so you were seeing a creature withing 60ft casting a spell.
The only reason you couldn't counterspell at the moment would be if you didn't know that is what you were looking at. But if you had detect magic up, or detect thoughts, you very well might know that is precisely what they're doing. Because otherwise you meet the trigger requirements for counterspell. You see them, they're within 60ft, and they're casting a spell. If you can be alerted to trigger your counterspell at that exact right moment, you're good to go. Why? Because the creature is the target. Not the spell.
I got quotes!
It doesn't require you to see the spell. It requires you to see the spellcasting. Because this is English, there's some question of operator precedence, but if you assume the other order you wind up unable to cast the spell at all unless you hadn't seen the creature before it started casting the spell.
Spells don't create magic effect during spellcasting but after it. If you have a rule quote saying spell release magic during casting i'd like to see one.
Without Sage Advice i could see place for argument that unless the caster is hidden, invisible or otherwise unseen, as long as it is casting a spell wether you can see the casting or not it would work because what you must see in the spell's trigger is the creature because a visible creature using Subtle Spell is still a creature you can see casting a spell.
But we have an official ruling that a Subtle Spell with no more material component is impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast for counterspell to be of use.So there's nothing to argue at this point really.
Hey all,
It's a really interesting discussion, especially about the grammar of the RAW but I also think we're failing to take into account one major point in this discussion...
How exactly does RW2 perceive that counterspell from RW1 failed as a result of the BW subtle counterspell and then decides to cast counterspell in the less than 6 second window?
Going back to the example that I think we've all been using:
Counterspell's wording states:
Let's go with the more liberal interpretation of Counterspell where this means that in a 6 second round other players have between 1-4 seconds to enact their own counterspells (and for simplicity ignore movement and bonus actions which can also eat up part of that 6 seconds). I say 1-4 seconds because in second 1 Blue Wizard starts casting the spell (and it would be impossible for either wizard to react at that point as they would have to have prior knowledge that Blue Sorcerer was going to cast the fireball) and in second 6 the spell is complete and the fireball effect happens.
This means that Red Wizard 1 casts counterspell using a reaction and then Blue Sorcerer does the a subtle counterspell to that. Lets be generous and say that each reaction only took 1 second (if you think you can do more than flip the bird at someone in 1 second, then you must have super speed...).
That still leaves, if we're being generous, a 2 second window for Red Wizard 2 to counterspell. If we're going with the more liberal interpretation where counterspell can be cast at anytime during the original spell's casting then yes, a 1 second reaction counterspell could still fit in that time frame.
My problem with this is that I'm asking myself "what is triggering RW2 to counterspell?"
Either:
If it's scenario 1 then RW2 should be stating their intent to counterspell right away. If they didn't, then the DM shouldn't allow them to claim a counterspell after the fact. They need to have stated it right away with RW1 because there would be no (non meta-gaming) reason why they wold be holding their counterspell until second 4 in the round (or until RW1's counterspell didn't work).
If it's scenario 2 then how is RW2 perceiving that RW1's counterspell didn't work in order to trigger their reaction of a counterspell? The only way to know RW1's counter didn't work is if the spell completes, at which point it's impossible to then counter the fireball. And even if you want to say that there are two seconds left for RW2's counterspell to be used, they would have to be paying attention to RW1's reaction and for RW1 to get a look of confusion or frustration on their face for RW2 to then realize that RW1's counter didn't work. At which point the DM should probably say "No, not going to happen."
While I appreciate the attention and discussion over the wording of Counterspell, at some point players and DMs have to look at the entirety of the situation to see if it makes any sense whatsoever.
It really doesn't matter whether it's when a player first perceives or is currently perceiving a caster cast a spell. Time is finite and only so many things can happen in a 6 second round.
How does a Wizard perceive a successful d20 check was made for History. Thus promoting his ability to take a reaction and cast silvery barbs?
Or how does he know if the people around him succeed on something like a save against, say, charm person or similar.
We could even ask how a wizard could perceive and have time to cast Silvery Barbs when a different spellcaster succeeded on their d20 check when they cast a Counterspell too.
The thing is, we don't need to know how the in universe characters detect these things. The game allows us to come up with explanations. It is fluff.
Just follow the mechanics of what the rules tell you they can do. Use your creative imagination to explain why they can do those things.
I got quotes!
And you seem to have missed half the point of the reasoning...
It's not just about how a character detects/perceives something. It's about how a character detects/perceives something and acts in time.
In this specific example, sure RW2 can detect/perceive the first counterspell didn't work easily. As by your own reasoning, you can use any excuse. Maybe they had detect magic up and sensed the forces at work, maybe they did an arcana check and figured out the spell being cast, or maybe they heard RW1 shout an expletive when their counterspell failed... You're right. You can use any reason to explain this.
The problem is that if you take that route, you then have to also explain how the RW2, processed that information they just perceived, decided to act on the situation in whichever way, and then performed that action (especially since counterspell requiresa somatic component) in a 2 second or less period of time (again, 2 seconds or less if we're being generous).
Just because a character reacting to a situation takes an instant, that doesn't mean a re-action only takes an instant. When a warrior decides to take an Attack of Opportunity, their blade doesn't just materialize in the enemy. The character still has to swing the blade, and in D&D they still have to actually hit the enemy.
My personal opinion:
Personally I believe the rules should actually state that you can't interrupt a reaction. It makes no sense whatsoever in quick time frames that a player can interrupt a reaction that is in essence extremely speedy. In this scenario, the BS should not be able to cast counterspell subtly on RW1 when they cast counterspell (BS is too busy concentrating on casting fireball anyway, but they are able to react with a counterspell and actively apply metamagic on that?). But the rules say it's possible so that means it should be allowed?
The problems is that we're talking about magic and the rules for it are imaginary and somewhat arbitrary in their creation.
That's the reason there is a DM. There is a final arbiter about what is possible/feasible in the shared world and time being created collaboratively. Sometimes a DM just needs to say something is not possible, even if it's RAW, and a player will just need to accept that.
Silvery barbs is a whole other mess in terms of the wording of the trigger. Probably deserves its own thread for picking that one apart.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
My interpretation is that he doesn't and thus cannot cast the spell, but that spell is a mess.
On the counterspell issue, RW#2 cannot perceive the counterspell but can perceive that BS is non longer casting (this does not require detect magic, the casting is visible). The question is whether a trigger is one-time (if you pass on reacting, you don't get to change your mind later), which was extensively argued about starting at around post 160.
Ironically, I think Silvery Barbs is relatively easy to explain.
In general it's just common terms and understanding for quick combat descriptions instead of using longer more immersive descriptions.
A character in game doesn't know what natural 20s or critical hits are (unless your world/universe includes those terms/concepts).
A DM will just say your enemy rolled a "Natural 20", or scored a "Critical Hit", because it's quicker than describing what that would look like in game. A DM could equally describe a critical hit as "Your enemy landed a blow on your party member and it looks like it's going to be a devastating hit that will do massive damage."
It's the Out of Character player that knows that all those descriptions mean a critical hit happened, and can choose for their in-game character to react and use Silvery Barbs.
We just all use Natural 20 and Critical Hit for efficiency purposes because Players (not Characters) exist both in game and out of it.
Reactions are instant and immediate.
I got quotes!
If you described the blow critically striking them then the point of using silvery barbs is well past.
They have to react to the d20 check. Not the results if the check.
That's sorta my point. The fact that they know it succeeds isn't particularly obvious. And it doesn't need to be. Because the game doesn't care about that.
I got quotes!