However, David had the best explanation: Since the 2nd counterspell was subtle, we cannot react to that. We also cannot effectively react to the failure of the first counterspell because that event is that the original spell has been cast. Our interpretation is that you must actually react to the original spell or you've missed your chance -- there is no other event to react to that would enable stopping the original spell.
When the 1st counterspell is counterspelled... the Fireball is still being cast and is eligible to be reacted to still. Because it is still being cast. It necessarily must be since counterspell is very clear about the timing. It happens during the process of the spell being cast. So we know that at the exact moment the counterspell is counterspelled that fireball is "in the process of being cast".
This is undisputable fact at this point.
So, again, we can run through the checklist of things we know:
A creature.
That Red Wizard 2 can see.
Within 60ft.
And IS casting a spell.
Every single part of the trigger conditions are met. Every part. So it can be reacted to.
Every part except one.
The only way to know that the first counterspell was not successful is by the fireball going off. At which point it is too late to counterspell. There is no psychic connection between the wizards to let them know when or if a counterspell succeeds. There is no visible or perceivable indication of success or failure of a casting of counterspell until AFTER the spell that was the target of the counterspell has completed.
If you disagree then please indicate how the other caster is aware that the first counterspell failed or succeeded when the only in game confirmation of that success or failure is the casting or not-casting of fireball.
The second wizard CAN decide to also counterspell the fireball when it is cast. They do not have access to any information regarding the success or failure of any other attempts at counterspelling until after the fireball spell succeeds or fails.
On the other hand, if you want to invent some rule that an effective counterspell causes the noticeable components of the spell to be disrupted in a way that is clearly visible to anyone nearby so that a viewer could then determine whether counterspell was effective or not - then that is a fine house rule - but there is nothing in RAW that would allow a viewer to determine whether a counterspell has been effective or not prior to the spell that was the target completing.
P.S. RAW the only way for a character to know that a counterspell was successful is whether the targeted spell is cast or not. The PLAYER may be aware of whether the dice roll was a success or failure but basing character actions on player knowledge is basic meta-gaming. How does a character know whether a counter spell succeeds or fails?
RW2 doesn't need to know if RW1 was successful or not. Reactions don't care about in-game knowledge, they made with metaknowledge.
Take silvery barbs for example. The trigger is when a creature succeeded on a d20 roll. How exactly does a character even know if that's true or not? And doesn't that mean that if they do have some way to detect it with in-character senses because they're allowed to react to it... they would then necessarily always know in-game, every single time a check within 60ft of them succeeded.
No. Taking a reaction or not IS a metagame level choice made by the player. The character doesn't even know what a reaction is, let alone consciously choose to make one.
It doesn't matter of RW2 know the counterspell was successful or not. His player and the DM do. And the choice to take a reaction are handled at the player level. If there is a valid trigger, he is eligible to take it.
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.
" . . . there is nothing that says you must react at the first opportunity. Nothing whatsoever. It doesn't even make a veiled suggestion that you need to. . . "
A reaction is an instant response to a trigger
" . . . "When a creature casts a spell" is the entirety of the spellcasting process . . . "
This is not the trigger for Counterspell. The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". That is the moment when you have an opportunity to react.
"You react instantly to the trigger *when* you choose to use your reaction"
What??
I feel like I've seen some quotes like this somewhere. Like: "No one goes there nowadays, it’s too crowded" or "It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking too much" or "I never said most of the things I said".
If there is a valid trigger, he is eligible to take it.
And it's already been explained that there is no valid trigger in this situation for two reasons. The trigger that was passed on is not ongoing AND there is no other trigger to react to before seeing that the fireball has been cast.
"When a creature falls" is the entirety of the fall.
No, that would be "when a creature is falling". "When a creature falls" is a singular event.
The key thing, really, is that the authors of 5e assumed a lot of problems would be resolved by the DM, and thus large parts of the game system malfunction when used as written.
" . . . there is nothing that says you must react at the first opportunity. Nothing whatsoever. It doesn't even make a veiled suggestion that you need to. . . "
A reaction is an instant response to a trigger
Correct. The reaction is instant. So when you choose to take your reaction, it happens instantly.
This says nothing about being compelled to use your reaction. You fully get to choose when you use them. If the condition for their use is valid, you choose to use it or not. And, when you do, it happens instantly.
" . . . "When a creature casts a spell" is the entirety of the spellcasting process . . . "
This is not the trigger for Counterspell. The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". That is the moment when you have an opportunity to react.
If a creature is within 60ft of you casting a spell, and you're looking at them... that IS "when you see a creature within 60ft of you casting a spell".
Literally that's when you see them. During the whole time they cast it. If you're there for the whole things: you see them cast it from start to finish. That period of time is "when" you see them cast it.
"You react instantly to the trigger *when* you choose to use your reaction"
What??
I feel like I've seen some quotes like this somewhere. Like: "No one goes there nowadays, it’s too crowded" or "It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking too much" or "I never said most of the things I said".
If you're making a reference I don't know it. The quote up at the top that we've both referenced seceral times says the exact same thing you're quoting from me here. When you do decide to take a raction, that reaction happens instantly.
If there is a valid trigger, he is eligible to take it.
And it's already been explained that there is no valid trigger in this situation for two reasons. The trigger that was passed on is not ongoing AND there is no other trigger to react to before seeing that the fireball has been cast.
The trigger is ongoing. You can cliam it isn't but we know it is. Counterpell states unequivocally that it interrupts a spell "in the process" of being cast. So the original fireball is 100% undeniably still being cast. Trigger is still valid.
You don't need some "other" trigger. RW2 reacts to the fireball being cast. THAT is the trigger.
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.
"When a creature falls" is the entirety of the fall.
No, that would be "when a creature is falling". "When a creature falls" is a singular event.
The key thing, really, is that the authors of 5e assumed a lot of problems would be resolved by the DM, and thus large parts of the game system malfunction when used as written.
This seems like a grammatical misunderstanding. "When a creature falls" refers to the entire beginning and up to the end of a fall. Verb tense-wise.
"When a creature is falling" refers to the entirety of after the start until before the end of the fall. Verb tense-wise.
"When a creature falls" thus includes the period of "when a creature is falling".
Verb tense is tricky sometimes but these are what intervals those verb tenses refers to.
If you wanted only the exact moment, a snapshot changestate, you'd say "When a creature starts to fall". This would be the moment you are looking for.
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.
It is the same for "casts". When a creature casts a spell, grammatically, refers to the duration of: from the start up until finish of the process. Similarly, When a creature is casting, refers to the duration from between the start to the finish of the process.
So, When a Creature Xs is grammatically the same as When a creature is Xing, except that it also includes the moment of beginning. Xs is a larger, more complete portion of the X event than Xing is.
That is why the trigger for counterspell remains valid throuout the casting of the target spell. Because that's what the spell literally tells us.
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.
We get that you don't agree with this interpretation, but we all read the phrase "when you see" as an event -- a moment in time:
Alex: Hey Bob, Craig said he is coming over. Let me know when you first see him so that I can hide.
Fixed for you.
The rules say what they say, and you're welcome to ignore what they say and play it how you want instead. I think sometimes when I tell people that there is nothing wrong with homebrew they take that as a slight but it really, genuinely, is not one.
The rules say what they say, and if we're discussing the rules themselves it is important to stay true to them. And that's what this specific forum is for, the rules and game mechanics. Homebrew has it's whole own forum. Here, it is more important to discuss the rule as it is. Not as we wish it to be, or even as we actually enact in our own games. This game is played at every table very differently, I've never been to a table that didn't have their own take on this game. And they all (for the most part) perfectly valid ways to play.
But if we're specifically talking about what the rules of the game actually say, we gotta stick to their literal meaning. And, the literal meaning of "when a creature casts a spell" refers to the entire duration from starting to cast up until finishing the process of casting. That's literally what it means. If the rule was meant to reference a different moment in time, it'd have been remarkably easy for them to have rephrased it.
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.
We quote the text from Counterspell exactly, which says "when you see a creature" and then YOU modify that in red letters to say "when you first see a creature" and then YOU suggest a phrase like "when a creature casts" -- and NEITHER of these two quotes that you've used (and have used many times before) come directly from the Counterspell description -- and somehow we are the ones homebrewing and you are not? Really?
We quote the text from Counterspell exactly, which says "when you see a creature" and then YOU modify that in red letters to say "when you first see a creature" and then YOU suggest a phrase like "when a creature casts" -- and NEITHER of these two quotes that you've used (and have used many times before) come directly from the Counterspell description -- and somehow we are the ones homebrewing and you are not? Really?
Uh, yes.
You want counterspell to only work when someone firstsees a spell being cast. Right? That is when you say is the only time it is able to be cast.
For your interpretation to be true, you need to add that first in there. You gotta edit the text from to rules and add the word "first" to make your interpretation true.
Compare:
RAW: 1 Reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. a reaction you can take any time while you can see a creature within 60ft of you casting a spell.
vs
Your Rules: 1 Reaction "which you take when you firstsee a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. you can only take that reaction immediately when you first notice a creature casting a spell.
You see? Your version needs an extra word added.
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 we would say the same about your interpretation:
You want counterspell to work at any time while you can see a spell being cast. Right? That is when you say that Counterspell is able to be cast.
For your interpretation to be true, you need to edit those other words in there. You gotta edit the text from the rules and edit to the words "at any time while you can see" to make your interpretation true.
Compare:
RAW: 1 Reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. a reaction you can take as soon as you see a creature within 60ft of you casting a spell.
vs
Your Rules: 1 Reaction "which you take at any time while you can see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. you can take that reaction at any time while you can see a creature casting a spell.
And we would say the same about your interpretation:
You want counterspell to work at any time while you can see a spell being cast. Right? That is when you say that Counterspell is able to be cast.
For your interpretation to be true, you need to edit those other words in there. You gotta edit the text from the rules and edit to the words "at any time while you can see" to make your interpretation true.
Compare:
RAW: 1 Reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. you can take that reaction at any time while you can see a creature casting a spell.
Fixed for you. I just wrote it in the comment immediately before you commented. I'm not sure how you overlooked it. But, in short:
-ing verbs are ongoing.
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.
Lots of discussion here but I just picked up on a few points that I'll throw some notes on.
1. Counterspell "interrupts" the casting of a spell. There are special rules around those in the DMG which specify that they "interrupt" their "trigger"
2. Counterspell targets a creature, not the spell itself or an effect from it. From Jeremy Crawford: "Counterspell targets a creature casting a spell, no matter the source of the spell (the creature, an item, etc.)"
3. We're also able to choose which trigger to use our reaction on. We aren't forced to use our reaction on only the first trigger (unless we specified "the first" in our trigger description for a readied action), and even then we can choose to ignore all triggers and forgo using the reaction at all.
4. RAW the trigger must be perceivable.
For perceivable, we take the definition "perceivable - capable of being perceived especially by sight or hearing" which simply means that the trigger must be something that the character can be aware of when it happens.
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. In addition, avoiding Somatic and Verbal components has wider uses such as casting a Verbal spell in a sphere of silence or casting a somatic spell without a free hand. Just because you have a material component doesn't mean you need to wave it around either unless the spell specifically requires you to (such as with a held weapon that is the material component used to make an attack with the spell). Obviously if the spell does something noticeable then that will be picked up, but the actual casting of it is up for debate.
There's even the wider question of "perceivable". The reaction condition for counterspell is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Arguably a deaf character can still see lips moving and cast counterspell. The other consideration is some of the Thief - Arcane Trickster's abilities such as "Magical Ambush" which causes a creature to have disadvantage on a saving throw versus the spell if you cast the spell while hidden.
About the only guidance Jeremy has given is: "Do you notice a spell being cast? The answer is based on whether you noticed any of the spellcasting components: V, S, or M."
---So Jeremy doesn't say the V, S or M components are automatically noticed or obvious. He begs the question which suggests circumstances and active work to detect can factor in. For confirmation and better guidance, Sage Advice writes:
Do you always know when you’re under the effect of a spell?
You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it (see PHB , under “Targets”). Most spells are obvious. For example, fireball burns you, cure wounds heals you, and command forces you to suddenly do something you didn’t intend. Certain spells are more subtle, yet you become aware of the spell at a time specified in the spell’s description. Charm person and detect thoughts are examples of such spells.
Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found. It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells. Discovery usually comes through the use of skills like Arcana, Investigation, Insight, and Perception or through spells like detect magic.
---So there we have "Suggestion" as an example with Verbal component and Sage Advice regards it as a "inconspicuous spell", but when it notes that most spells are obvious it only gives the effect of some spells as examples rather than the casting of it. Also from Sage Advice:
Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate?
Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
--- Which means that if you had Suggestion cast on you then the caster made some intelligible utterance of mystic words, not normal speech, just before making the suggestion. So if someone casts suggestion on you, during a conversation that the other party members are there for, they could easily notice this strange set of words. But, it notes that its all up to the DM to decide and gives the set of skills, including ones with passive values such as Insight and Perception.
Take also the Message spell which lets you whisper something to someone without being heard. This spell has V, S, M and specifies that you point at the recipient. Granted, they would have to do an Arcana check to know you're using the Message spell, but you're performing a spell you likely don't want noticed in a situation where there are people around that make you want to communicate secretly and pointing to exactly who it involves...
________________________ Ultimately, I think the sage advice note of "It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells" is the best advice to follow for each table and then its a matter of understanding that a spell with an inconspicuous effect would rely on circumstances and other factors to be noticed. In combat, the combatants are watching out for the hostiles they can see and thats how you argue noticing a casting that isn't subtle as occurring for counterspell. In an area with plenty of people talking and mumbling, such as a marketplace or tavern, you could miss or not hear verbal spells when you're not actively monitoring and making perception or investigation hearing checks to pick it up. On the other hand, if they're directly talking to you and cast suggestion while other party members are part of the conversation, they would likely notice just by passive insight that something was cast (unless they're storm troopers and don't question why one of them suddenly insists that these aren't the droids they're looking for). If you're in a dead quiet room and someone casts with a Verbal component, it'd be pretty hard to argue that passive perception doesn't pick up the noise but maybe you'd require an active insight check to determine its spellcasting rather than talking or mumbling. Likewise, if its only a somatic component then an NPC alone in a room that has nothing overly distracting for the PCs to check out, likely can't get away without someone noticing their gestures. But again, it might be a DM simply telling a non caster PC they notice the player making some strange gestures or movements and tell them they'd have to actively make an insight check to determine what they're doing, or a spell caster would immediately recognise a spell casting and require an arcana check reaction to determine what spell or be given an opportunity to cast counterspell if they have 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.
3. We're also able to choose which trigger to use our reaction on. We aren't forced to use our reaction on only the first trigger (unless we specified "the first" in our trigger description for a readied action), and even then we can choose to ignore all triggers and forgo using the reaction at all.
I agree with all of this. You always have the option to pass on a trigger without reacting. So, in a scenario where there are multiple triggers within the same round a character may pass on one or more triggers and then use their reaction on a separate trigger later on.
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.
I agree i don't think RAW you can wait for someone else's reaction result before reacting to the same trigger they did, wether it's an Opportunity Attack or counterspell spells without Longer Casting Times than a single action or reaction.
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.
Thats just noting the imperceptibility of it due to no V,S. It notes that if there is a material component it could still be perceived so "subtle spell" doesn't mean its impossible to perceive a spell, regardless of anything else. Only that if there are only V or S components that are no longer necessary that it's impossible because there's nothing to perceive
BUT as per the other points I made, the perceptibility is up to the DM. If a character has an active Detect Magic spell, for instance, then I believe there's an easy argument to be made for perceiving the build up of magical force. Even with a material component, I think there's also a case for NOT perceiving a spell, particularly if its using a focus the caster already had in hand.
Consider also: DMG: 141 Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description says otherwise.
With no components, this would make responding to spells from wands and other magic items impossible. However we have JC's tweet noting that counterspell will target the creature even if the spell is cast from an item, which suggests it can still be perceived. The easy point would be that a magic item effectively constitutes a material component but if no Somatic points are required and the caster is holding the wand all the time then what would give it away?
So really, the Sage Advice on that is simply supporting the notion that Subtle Spell with a V,S spell would be impossible to perceive BECAUSE there's nothing to perceive with natural senses. Not as an automatic rule that Subtle Spell means its impossible to perceive regardless of any other circumstances from Detect Magic to Material Components, Focus use or other details.
The rule for perceiving a spell is also important because a character might try to hide the casting of a spell in mundane ways which would need to beat the perception or insight skills of others if the DM will allow it. Even someone casting Subtle Spell with a material component might try mundane methods to avoid giving away that their handling of the component is for casting a spell.
The rules for magic items in 5e are that each item describes how it is used. It is possible that the usage of some magic items is perceptible and the usage of other magic items is not perceptible. The JC Tweet was just emphasizing that Counterspell targets a creature and not the spell that is being blocked.
The most recent debate in this thread was not about whether or not the subtle spell could be Counterspelled -- it was about whether or not you could go back and Counterspell the original Fireball after a previous Counterspell and a subsequent subtle Counterspell had already been cast and fully resolved in reaction to that Fireball.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
RW2 doesn't need to know if RW1 was successful or not. Reactions don't care about in-game knowledge, they made with metaknowledge.
Take silvery barbs for example. The trigger is when a creature succeeded on a d20 roll. How exactly does a character even know if that's true or not? And doesn't that mean that if they do have some way to detect it with in-character senses because they're allowed to react to it... they would then necessarily always know in-game, every single time a check within 60ft of them succeeded.
No. Taking a reaction or not IS a metagame level choice made by the player. The character doesn't even know what a reaction is, let alone consciously choose to make one.
It doesn't matter of RW2 know the counterspell was successful or not. His player and the DM do. And the choice to take a reaction are handled at the player level. If there is a valid trigger, he is eligible to take it.
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.
" . . . there is nothing that says you must react at the first opportunity. Nothing whatsoever. It doesn't even make a veiled suggestion that you need to. . . "
" . . . "When a creature casts a spell" is the entirety of the spellcasting process . . . "
This is not the trigger for Counterspell. The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". That is the moment when you have an opportunity to react.
"You react instantly to the trigger *when* you choose to use your reaction"
What??
I feel like I've seen some quotes like this somewhere. Like: "No one goes there nowadays, it’s too crowded" or "It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking too much" or "I never said most of the things I said".
And it's already been explained that there is no valid trigger in this situation for two reasons. The trigger that was passed on is not ongoing AND there is no other trigger to react to before seeing that the fireball has been cast.
If a character is unable to see the success, they cannot cast the spell (also, a well known terrible spell).
No, that would be "when a creature is falling". "When a creature falls" is a singular event.
The key thing, really, is that the authors of 5e assumed a lot of problems would be resolved by the DM, and thus large parts of the game system malfunction when used as written.
Correct. The reaction is instant. So when you choose to take your reaction, it happens instantly.
This says nothing about being compelled to use your reaction. You fully get to choose when you use them. If the condition for their use is valid, you choose to use it or not. And, when you do, it happens instantly.
If a creature is within 60ft of you casting a spell, and you're looking at them... that IS "when you see a creature within 60ft of you casting a spell".
Literally that's when you see them. During the whole time they cast it. If you're there for the whole things: you see them cast it from start to finish. That period of time is "when" you see them cast it.
If you're making a reference I don't know it. The quote up at the top that we've both referenced seceral times says the exact same thing you're quoting from me here. When you do decide to take a raction, that reaction happens instantly.
The trigger is ongoing. You can cliam it isn't but we know it is. Counterpell states unequivocally that it interrupts a spell "in the process" of being cast. So the original fireball is 100% undeniably still being cast. Trigger is still valid.
You don't need some "other" trigger. RW2 reacts to the fireball being cast. THAT is the trigger.
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 seems like a grammatical misunderstanding. "When a creature falls" refers to the entire beginning and up to the end of a fall. Verb tense-wise.
"When a creature is falling" refers to the entirety of after the start until before the end of the fall. Verb tense-wise.
"When a creature falls" thus includes the period of "when a creature is falling".
Verb tense is tricky sometimes but these are what intervals those verb tenses refers to.
If you wanted only the exact moment, a snapshot changestate, you'd say "When a creature starts to fall". This would be the moment you are looking for.
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.
If you prefer, feather fall requires the target to hit the ground before you can cast it.
Ugh, there was already an entire long thread on here where he spent several pages arguing exactly that. Don't take the bait!
It is the same for "casts". When a creature casts a spell, grammatically, refers to the duration of: from the start up until finish of the process. Similarly, When a creature is casting, refers to the duration from between the start to the finish of the process.
So, When a Creature Xs is grammatically the same as When a creature is Xing, except that it also includes the moment of beginning. Xs is a larger, more complete portion of the X event than Xing is.
That is why the trigger for counterspell remains valid throuout the casting of the target spell. Because that's what the spell literally tells us.
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.
We get that you don't agree with this interpretation, but we all read the phrase "when you see" as an event -- a moment in time:
Alex: Hey Bob, Craig said he is coming over. Let me know when you see him so that I can hide.
Bob: Ok
Bob watches Craig approach from down the street.
Craig: Hey guys!
Bob: Oh, hey Alex, I can see Craig.
Alex: What? Just now??
Bob: No, I've been watching him approach for a while now.
Alex: Why didn't you tell me when you saw him??
Bob: I am.
Alex: What!!???
Fixed for you.
The rules say what they say, and you're welcome to ignore what they say and play it how you want instead. I think sometimes when I tell people that there is nothing wrong with homebrew they take that as a slight but it really, genuinely, is not one.
The rules say what they say, and if we're discussing the rules themselves it is important to stay true to them. And that's what this specific forum is for, the rules and game mechanics. Homebrew has it's whole own forum. Here, it is more important to discuss the rule as it is. Not as we wish it to be, or even as we actually enact in our own games. This game is played at every table very differently, I've never been to a table that didn't have their own take on this game. And they all (for the most part) perfectly valid ways to play.
But if we're specifically talking about what the rules of the game actually say, we gotta stick to their literal meaning. And, the literal meaning of "when a creature casts a spell" refers to the entire duration from starting to cast up until finishing the process of casting. That's literally what it means. If the rule was meant to reference a different moment in time, it'd have been remarkably easy for them to have rephrased it.
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.
So wait,
We quote the text from Counterspell exactly, which says "when you see a creature" and then YOU modify that in red letters to say "when you first see a creature" and then YOU suggest a phrase like "when a creature casts" -- and NEITHER of these two quotes that you've used (and have used many times before) come directly from the Counterspell description -- and somehow we are the ones homebrewing and you are not? Really?
Uh, yes.
You want counterspell to only work when someone first sees a spell being cast. Right? That is when you say is the only time it is able to be cast.
For your interpretation to be true, you need to add that first in there. You gotta edit the text from to rules and add the word "first" to make your interpretation true.
Compare:
RAW: 1 Reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. a reaction you can take any time while you can see a creature within 60ft of you casting a spell.
vs
Your Rules: 1 Reaction "which you take when you first see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. you can only take that reaction immediately when you first notice a creature casting a spell.
You see? Your version needs an extra word added.
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 we would say the same about your interpretation:
You want counterspell to work at any time while you can see a spell being cast. Right? That is when you say that Counterspell is able to be cast.
For your interpretation to be true, you need to edit those other words in there. You gotta edit the text from the rules and edit to the words "at any time while you can see" to make your interpretation true.
Compare:
RAW: 1 Reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. a reaction you can take as soon as you see a creature within 60ft of you casting a spell.
vs
Your Rules: 1 Reaction "which you take at any time while you can see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
ie. you can take that reaction at any time while you can see a creature casting a spell.
You see? Your version needs extra words added.
Fixed for you. I just wrote it in the comment immediately before you commented. I'm not sure how you overlooked it. But, in short:
-ing verbs are ongoing.
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.
Lots of discussion here but I just picked up on a few points that I'll throw some notes on.
1. Counterspell "interrupts" the casting of a spell.
There are special rules around those in the DMG which specify that they "interrupt" their "trigger"
2. Counterspell targets a creature, not the spell itself or an effect from it.
From Jeremy Crawford: "Counterspell targets a creature casting a spell, no matter the source of the spell (the creature, an item, etc.)"
3. We're also able to choose which trigger to use our reaction on. We aren't forced to use our reaction on only the first trigger (unless we specified "the first" in our trigger description for a readied action), and even then we can choose to ignore all triggers and forgo using the reaction at all.
4. RAW the trigger must be perceivable.
For perceivable, we take the definition "perceivable - capable of being perceived especially by sight or hearing" which simply means that the trigger must be something that the character can be aware of when it happens.
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. In addition, avoiding Somatic and Verbal components has wider uses such as casting a Verbal spell in a sphere of silence or casting a somatic spell without a free hand. Just because you have a material component doesn't mean you need to wave it around either unless the spell specifically requires you to (such as with a held weapon that is the material component used to make an attack with the spell). Obviously if the spell does something noticeable then that will be picked up, but the actual casting of it is up for debate.
There's even the wider question of "perceivable". The reaction condition for counterspell is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Arguably a deaf character can still see lips moving and cast counterspell. The other consideration is some of the Thief - Arcane Trickster's abilities such as "Magical Ambush" which causes a creature to have disadvantage on a saving throw versus the spell if you cast the spell while hidden.
About the only guidance Jeremy has given is: "Do you notice a spell being cast? The answer is based on whether you noticed any of the spellcasting components: V, S, or M."
---So Jeremy doesn't say the V, S or M components are automatically noticed or obvious. He begs the question which suggests circumstances and active work to detect can factor in. For confirmation and better guidance, Sage Advice writes:
Do you always know when you’re under the effect of a spell?
You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it (see PHB , under “Targets”). Most spells are obvious. For example, fireball burns you, cure wounds heals you, and command forces you to suddenly do something you didn’t intend. Certain spells are more subtle, yet you become aware of the spell at a time specified in the spell’s description. Charm person and detect thoughts are examples of such spells.
Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found. It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells. Discovery usually comes through the use of skills like Arcana, Investigation, Insight, and Perception or through spells like detect magic.
---So there we have "Suggestion" as an example with Verbal component and Sage Advice regards it as a "inconspicuous spell", but when it notes that most spells are obvious it only gives the effect of some spells as examples rather than the casting of it. Also from Sage Advice:
Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate?
Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
--- Which means that if you had Suggestion cast on you then the caster made some intelligible utterance of mystic words, not normal speech, just before making the suggestion. So if someone casts suggestion on you, during a conversation that the other party members are there for, they could easily notice this strange set of words. But, it notes that its all up to the DM to decide and gives the set of skills, including ones with passive values such as Insight and Perception.
Take also the Message spell which lets you whisper something to someone without being heard. This spell has V, S, M and specifies that you point at the recipient. Granted, they would have to do an Arcana check to know you're using the Message spell, but you're performing a spell you likely don't want noticed in a situation where there are people around that make you want to communicate secretly and pointing to exactly who it involves...
________________________
Ultimately, I think the sage advice note of "It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells" is the best advice to follow for each table and then its a matter of understanding that a spell with an inconspicuous effect would rely on circumstances and other factors to be noticed. In combat, the combatants are watching out for the hostiles they can see and thats how you argue noticing a casting that isn't subtle as occurring for counterspell. In an area with plenty of people talking and mumbling, such as a marketplace or tavern, you could miss or not hear verbal spells when you're not actively monitoring and making perception or investigation hearing checks to pick it up. On the other hand, if they're directly talking to you and cast suggestion while other party members are part of the conversation, they would likely notice just by passive insight that something was cast (unless they're storm troopers and don't question why one of them suddenly insists that these aren't the droids they're looking for). If you're in a dead quiet room and someone casts with a Verbal component, it'd be pretty hard to argue that passive perception doesn't pick up the noise but maybe you'd require an active insight check to determine its spellcasting rather than talking or mumbling. Likewise, if its only a somatic component then an NPC alone in a room that has nothing overly distracting for the PCs to check out, likely can't get away without someone noticing their gestures. But again, it might be a DM simply telling a non caster PC they notice the player making some strange gestures or movements and tell them they'd have to actively make an insight check to determine what they're doing, or a spell caster would immediately recognise a spell casting and require an arcana check reaction to determine what spell or be given an opportunity to cast counterspell if they have it.
Just want to point out that the Sage Advice Compendium has a ruling on this, a V S spell altered by Subtle Spell is impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast and therefore is not valid target for counterspell .
I agree with all of this. You always have the option to pass on a trigger without reacting. So, in a scenario where there are multiple triggers within the same round a character may pass on one or more triggers and then use their reaction on a separate trigger later on.
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.
Thats just noting the imperceptibility of it due to no V,S. It notes that if there is a material component it could still be perceived so "subtle spell" doesn't mean its impossible to perceive a spell, regardless of anything else. Only that if there are only V or S components that are no longer necessary that it's impossible because there's nothing to perceive
BUT as per the other points I made, the perceptibility is up to the DM. If a character has an active Detect Magic spell, for instance, then I believe there's an easy argument to be made for perceiving the build up of magical force. Even with a material component, I think there's also a case for NOT perceiving a spell, particularly if its using a focus the caster already had in hand.
Consider also:
DMG: 141
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description says otherwise.
With no components, this would make responding to spells from wands and other magic items impossible. However we have JC's tweet noting that counterspell will target the creature even if the spell is cast from an item, which suggests it can still be perceived. The easy point would be that a magic item effectively constitutes a material component but if no Somatic points are required and the caster is holding the wand all the time then what would give it away?
So really, the Sage Advice on that is simply supporting the notion that Subtle Spell with a V,S spell would be impossible to perceive BECAUSE there's nothing to perceive with natural senses. Not as an automatic rule that Subtle Spell means its impossible to perceive regardless of any other circumstances from Detect Magic to Material Components, Focus use or other details.
The rule for perceiving a spell is also important because a character might try to hide the casting of a spell in mundane ways which would need to beat the perception or insight skills of others if the DM will allow it. Even someone casting Subtle Spell with a material component might try mundane methods to avoid giving away that their handling of the component is for casting a spell.
The rules for magic items in 5e are that each item describes how it is used. It is possible that the usage of some magic items is perceptible and the usage of other magic items is not perceptible. The JC Tweet was just emphasizing that Counterspell targets a creature and not the spell that is being blocked.
The most recent debate in this thread was not about whether or not the subtle spell could be Counterspelled -- it was about whether or not you could go back and Counterspell the original Fireball after a previous Counterspell and a subsequent subtle Counterspell had already been cast and fully resolved in reaction to that Fireball.