I think we should all be able to agree. A hand which is busy doing something, is busy. And a hand which is busy doing something, isn't free to do something else.
Actions are discrete in 5e. By the time you are counterspelling the counterspell your hands are no longer busy.
I think the fact that 5e allows taking reactions on your turn is a mistake because it tends to produce results where you are apparently doing two incompatible things at the same time (attack someone adjacent to an enemy with sentinel, they react to hit you, you use defensive duelist to prevent the hit), but there is nothing special about counterspell.
the firststaement isn't truew, 5E clearly describes when the reaction is taken. in the case of counterspell it is has the spell is cast, in the middle of casting the spell.
the second statement... its not a mistake considering you have only a single reaction per turn. sure you can use your reaction to protect yourself when you are casting that crucial fireball. but now you cnanot counter the fireball of your enemy when he's gonna cast it. so its a double edged sword. same with your exemple... you used the reaction to counter an attack of opportunity, but if there is more then one enemy, you can only do it once. and now you'll be left at the mercy of whoever else wants to attack you. so int he end, yes you protected yourself, but now you have used up your reaction until it comes back to the beginning of your turn. that alone is what renders reactions potent. because they are double edged swords, when you use them is important cause there is no turning back. unlike actions and bonus actions which are just blatantly used the same way over and over again. if you were asking me, i'd say things like action surge are far more dangerous then reactions will ever be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
its not a mistake considering you have only a single reaction per turn.
It's not a balance problem. It just produces the occasional irrational outcome which would be avoided by not permitting on-turn reactions.
i do not get what you mean by "irrationnal outcome", i've been playing for along time and my players have used reactions for many a thing. i have never seen irrationnal outcomes happens. even in your exemple, i dont see it as irrationnal. taking your own exemple... i dont get the "they attack you" if you are using sentinel,they are clearly attacking someone else otherwise you wouldn't have that happen to you and its clearly stated that if they have sentinel too, this won't happen.
i'm just lost to know what you mean by irrationnal outcome as i dont see such outcome in your exemple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Just a quick note. You can't counterspell a subtle counterspell, because it has no verbal, somatic nor material component.
That's right, and in this ridiculous example, it wouldn't matter because the original caster (the blue sorcerer) has produced a valid trigger in the form of casting fireball. The subtle counterspell would be interrupted along with the fireball (even if nobody other than the sorcerer knew about it) as a casualty of the counterspell process interrupting the blue sorcerer.
Welcome to the forums!
EDIT: That is to say that a caster casting a subtle spell absolutely can be counterspelled. The subtle spell just doesn't trigger counterspell, which is why my example needed the fireball to act as the trigger.
I'm not so sure that I'm loving the timing of events in that example. When the Red Wizard #2 "then jumps in" it seems to me that it might be too late to react to the fireball trigger at that point. Since the subtle counterspell is not a valid target, perhaps there is just no valid target for this third counterspell.
If instead, fireball was cast and then immediately two opponents both react and both cast counterspell in response to this -- then the fireball caster is in a bind because he would not be able to counterspell both incoming counterspells since he has only one reaction.
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.
I would not allow that. In my opinion, Red Wizard #2's window of opportunity to react to the fireball is during step 1. You cannot pass on that opportunity and watch other events happen and then analyze the results and then decide to react to the spell that was cast in step 1 all the way down in step 5. The first counterspell was cast in reaction to the fireball being cast and that was the only reaction taken in response to that trigger. When that first counterspell fails, the fireball is cast. There is no other event to react to in order to stop this.
Just a quick note. You can't counterspell a subtle counterspell, because it has no verbal, somatic nor material component.
That's right, and in this ridiculous example, it wouldn't matter because the original caster (the blue sorcerer) has produced a valid trigger in the form of casting fireball. The subtle counterspell would be interrupted along with the fireball (even if nobody other than the sorcerer knew about it) as a casualty of the counterspell process interrupting the blue sorcerer.
Welcome to the forums!
EDIT: That is to say that a caster casting a subtle spell absolutely can be counterspelled. The subtle spell just doesn't trigger counterspell, which is why my example needed the fireball to act as the trigger.
Thanks for the welcome !
You have an interesting point of view. I thought that you meant that red wizard#2 tried to counterspell the blue Sorcerer counterspell because in my way of thinking you only can take a Reaction in the EXACT same time that you notice the triggering effect.
For me a Reaction is an automatic response, like a reflex action or a well trained muscle memory movement.
* In the example you posted, assuming the 3 wizards can see each other, I would have ruled: 1. Blue Sorcerer cast fireball. 2. Both red wizards notice the fireball being casted, now they have the oportunity to take the Reaction. Only Red Wizard#1 decides to cast counterspell. 3. Blue Sorcerer casts subtle counterspell. Red wizard#2 can't cast counterspell to counter the fireball, because the trigering effect was that he noticed the counterspell of his partner being "somehow" countered.
If when both red wizards notice that the Blue Sorcerer is casting fireball and they both decide to cast counterspell, then the Blue Sorcerer also notices that the 2 Red Wizards are casting counterspell, so he would probably decide to let the counterspells happen because now there is nothing he can do, he is being outnumbered. (I am aware that his creates some incongruities because both are spending a spell slot to counter only one spell).
* I also like your way of thinking/ruling and is maybe less problematic. I imagine It like if the three casters were playing a card game where all the spells go to the stack: 1. Blue Sorcerer casts {Fireball} 2. Red Wizard#1 casts {Counter target spell} in response to fireball. 3. Blue Sorcerer casts {Counter target spell. This spell can't be countered} in response to Counterspell. (Initial counterspell is countered, but fireball is still on the stack) 4. Red Wizard #2 cast {Counterspell} in response to fireball. 5. Blue Sorcerer doesn't have response and the stack resolves: nothing happened.
I still think that in this way Red Wizard#2 played a bit dirty for 5e because he waited for the Blue Sorcerer to counter #1 counterspell, he didn't reacted inmediatly as a response of noticing the fireball being casted, he waited and reacted when he noticed that the counterspell his partner was casting failed. In my opinon now is too late for him, and a fireball is approaching to his face.
Because of the timing specified in the counterspell spell, the initial spell still is an eligible trigger for red wizard #2, even after the resolution of the red v blue counterspells. Because the fireball is still in the process of being cast.
Why? Because the counterspells happened at this state: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." Which means this trigger is 100% valid: "you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."
Blue wizard is still:
. A creature.
. That Red Wizard 2 can see
. With 60ft
. And IS casting a spell
Eligible target, trigger goes off, RW2 counterspells the Fireball.
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 problem is that RW#2 should not be able to react to the failure of the counterspell.
Interrupt timing is a complicated problem in turn-based systems, MtG seems to have made several passes at it and the current priority rules are... not something I care to try and understand at the moment, but apparently complicated enough that people write articles explaining how it works. 5e does not want to be that kind of game, which means its timing rules are kinda vague. It would be reasonable for a DM to rule that all counterspells (to the fireball) must be declared before any are resolved, but the rules don't require that interpretation (nor do they require otherwise).
The problem is that RW#2 should not be able to react to the failure of the counterspell.
Interrupt timing is a complicated problem in turn-based systems, MtG seems to have made several passes at it and the current priority rules are... not something I care to try and understand at the moment, but apparently complicated enough that people write articles explaining how it works. 5e does not want to be that kind of game, which means its timing rules are kinda vague. It would be reasonable for a DM to rule that all counterspells (to the fireball) must be declared before any are resolved, but the rules don't require that interpretation (nor do they require otherwise).
Agreed.
RW1 and RW2 could BOTH decide to counterspell the fireball when it is cast. Then at least one of the counterspells is more likely to succeed.
However, I wouldn't allow RW#2 (or a character in a similar circumstance) to react to the failure of the RW1 counterspell since the only way they have to know that it failed is when the fireball goes off - there is no indication prior to the fireball going off that the counterspell failed. The decision for RW2 to cast counterspell occurs when the fireball is cast and not when the counterspell fails.
This situation also applies to an upcast fireball that is counterspelled by a 3rd level slot. RW#1 needs to make a skill check to determine success or failure ... and that die roll is NOT a trigger for casting another counterspell.
The trigger for counterspell is when you see a creature within 60' casting a spell. In my opinion, that moment does not last indefinitely, a series of opponents can't have each cast a counterspell in turn until one succeeds. The decision to cast counterspell happens at the moment the spell is cast. At least that is how I would rule it.
The trigger for counterspell is when you see a creature within 60' casting a spell. In my opinion, that moment does not last indefinitely, a series of opponents can't have each cast a counterspell in turn until one succeeds. The decision to cast counterspell happens at the moment the spell is cast. At least that is how I would rule it.
I consider that a reasonable interpretation that is permitted but not compelled by the rules.
The trigger for counterspell is when you see a creature within 60' casting a spell. In my opinion, that moment does not last indefinitely,
It doesn't need to be indefinitely. It just need to be true at the same time RW2 wants to counterpell. And it is. So he can.
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.
Why are you claiming this? Where are the rules that support your claim? At best (from your perspective) the timing is not well defined. A Fireball spell has a casting time of "1 action" and Counterspell has a casting time of "1 reaction". How large are these units exactly? How much time does each of these represent? Where does it say that two reactions can be completed with time to spare before an action completes? An action can take any amount of time between instantaneous and 6 seconds. A reaction is "an instant response to a trigger" but the execution time of that response is not necessarily instantaneous -- it's undefined. The spellcasting rules suggest that "These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about". Ok, so how does that fraction of a second compare to the spell that is cast with a casting time of "1 action"? That's undefined.
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.
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.
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.
First, you don't know that the Fireball is still being cast. Maybe there was some overlap. Maybe the first Counterspell was executed just in the nick of time before Fireball was completed. But by the time the 2nd Counterspell finishes the casting process for the Fireball has long since completed. The time that each of the 3 spells takes to execute is undefined beyond saying that the first one takes "1 action" and the 2nd and 3rd spells each take "1 reaction".
But if you don't like that argument, the one provided by David is even better. Remember, in this scenario the 2nd Counterspell was cast subtly. So, the caster of the 3rd Counterspell cannot have known about it. The only way to know that the first Counterspell somehow failed is that you actually see the effects of the Fireball succeeding after the process of the casting of the Fireball has completed. There is literally no way to wait and observe whether or not someone else's Counterspell fails and THEN react to the Fireball in response to that information -- there is nothing to react to. You either react to the Fireball before you know the outcome of other Counterspelling efforts or you don't react at all.
First, you don't know that the Fireball is still being cast.
Yes, we do.
Maybe there was some overlap. Maybe the first Counterspell was executed just in the nick of time before Fireball was completed. But by the time the 2nd Counterspell finishes the casting process for the Fireball has long since completed.
That's not possible given the description given to us by the counterspell spell itself.
The time that each of the 3 spells takes to execute is undefined beyond saying that the first one takes "1 action" and the 2nd and 3rd spells each take "1 reaction".
They're not undefined. Read the first sentence of counterspell again.
Counterspell is both instantaneous, and happens during the process of casting another spell. The timing here isn't at all subjective, or undefined. It is very clear.
But if you don't like that argument, the one provided by David is even better. Remember, in this scenario the 2nd Counterspell was cast subtly. So, the caster of the 3rd Counterspell cannot have known about it. The only way to know that the first Counterspell somehow failed is that you actually see the effects of the Fireball succeeding after the process of the casting of the Fireball has completed. There is literally no way to wait and observe whether or not someone else's Counterspell fails and THEN react to the Fireball in response to that information -- there is nothing to react to. You either react to the Fireball before you know the outcome of other Counterspelling efforts or you don't react at all.
You're welcome to handle information differently, and hide the results of the counterspells from the other spellcasters until a full resolution takes place. But even if you do, after the counterspell is counterspelled is still an eligible moment for RW2 to cast his counterspell. If you want to impair the knowledge he has on which to make that decision you'd be free to, but he still can do it should he choose to.
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.
Yes, we agree that both wizards can cast Counterspell at the same time as a reaction to the Fireball -- but neither would know the result of the other when they make that decision. You cannot react to the Fireball after knowing the result of the Counterspell -- there is nothing to react to. Meaning, if the 1st Counterspell failed then the Fireball has already been cast -- there is no other event between these two results. So, you react to the Fireball or you don't.
Consider the case where a foe casts Fireball but it was upcast. Both wizards are only capable of casting Counterspell at the default level. So the DM describes how the fireball is being cast and Wizard #1's player jumps in and announces that he is casting Counterspell. The DM looks at Wizard #2's player and asks "anything from you?" to which he responds with "no, I'm going to wait and see what happens". Fine. In this situation, an ability check is now required to see if Counterspell is successful. Player 1 rolls the die and fails the ability check. Now, Player 2 might attempt to jump in here. Or, the DM might say something like "The Counterspell fails and now the Fir--". "Wait!" cries Player 2. "After that Counterspell fails but before the Fireball is cast, I will now cast Counterspell!"
The DM says "Yeah, that's a 100% hard no." And he would be correct. It's pure metagaming that Player 2 knows that Counterspell has failed before Fireball has been cast. Wizard 2 DOES NOT know this. He cannot see the dice being rolled. There is no way for him to know. There is no event that can cause him to react at this moment. He was given the chance to react to the Fireball when he saw the foe casting it and he declined. There is no other moment or event in which he can react to this -- the Fireball has been cast. It's too late.
The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". This is a moment in time that you can react to. It's a trigger. It's not an ongoing thing or a repeating thing like "oh, I can still see him" or "oh, I saw him before, then something happened, and now I see him again". It's the instant that you see and recognize the situation -- that's your trigger. There is only one trigger in the situation. There are not multiple triggers while the spell is still in the process of being cast. It's always the same trigger, which occurred at the moment "when you see a creature . . .".
A reaction is an instant response to a trigger
There are combat rules for reactions that describe how they work in the Reactions section and also in the section on the Ready Action and also in the section on Opportunity Attacks. The trigger occurs and you instantly respond, like a reflex. Or, you can choose to ignore the trigger. You don't get to ignore the trigger and then come back to it later to react to it. That's not how it works.
Yes, we agree that both wizards can cast Counterspell at the same time as a reaction to the Fireball -- but neither would know the result of the other when they make that decision. You cannot react to the Fireball after knowing the result of the Counterspell -- there is nothing to react to. Meaning, if the 1st Counterspell failed then the Fireball has already been cast -- there is no other event between these two results. So, you react to the Fireball or you don't.
No, again, the timing is very clear with counterspell. Counterspell happens while the target spell is IN THE PROCESS of being cast. So the counterspell always happens in the mid-point of casting of the target spell. In the process.
"in the process"
The timing is black and white here. The very first line of counterspell says as much. If you cannot acknowledge this you're not going to get an accurate understanding of the spell.
Consider the case where a foe casts Fireball but it was upcast. Both wizards are only capable of casting Counterspell at the default level. So the DM describes how the fireball is being cast and Wizard #1's player jumps in and announces that he is casting Counterspell. The DM looks at Wizard #2's player and asks "anything from you?" to which he responds with "no, I'm going to wait and see what happens".
That's not how reactions work. The DM doesn't ask everyone who has a reaction-ability every opportunity that reaction can trigger. Have you ever played the game with a character with silvery barbs and the very thought of stopping to ask Player B every....single...time.... a d20 is rolled. In all situations. Constantly.
Anyway. No. I reject this example because that's not how the game is played.The DM wouldn't look to player 2 and ask if he ALSO wants to cast counterspell. He'd go straight to resolving the Player 1's counterspell. It is an instantaneous effect.
Fine. In this situation, an ability check is now required to see if Counterspell is successful. Player 1 rolls the die and fails the ability check. Now, Player 2 might attempt to jump in here. Or, the DM might say something like "The Counterspell fails and now the Fir--". "Wait!" cries Player 2. "After that Counterspell fails but before the Fireball is cast, I will now cast Counterspell!"
The DM says "Ok. Make a check." and they resolve it.
The DM says "Yeah, that's a 100% hard no." And he would be correct. It's pure metagaming that Player 2 knows that Counterspell has failed before Fireball has been cast. Wizard 2 DOES NOT know this. He cannot see the dice being rolled. There is no way for him to know. There is no event that can cause him to react at this moment. He was given the chance to react to the Fireball when he saw the foe casting it and he declined. There is no other moment or event in which he can react to this -- the Fireball has been cast. It's too late.
None of this happens.
You also don't know if it is metagaming. TBH. You're assuming it is but how are we to know if there is obvious signs when spells are countered or not? It might be super obvious the counterspell was counterspelled. Ala like crashing beams of magical energy or whatever. The crunchy rules are silent on that. You're assuming there is no way for in-game creatures to know? But if the rules allow for this reaction (and they do) then it is clear there is a way for the in-game creatures to know. It just isn't important enough to lock it down as one specific description as to why.
The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". This is a moment in time that you can react to. It's a trigger. It's not an ongoing thing or a repeating thing like "oh, I can still see him" or "oh, I saw him before, then something happened, and now I see him again". It's the instant that you see and recognize the situation -- that's your trigger. There is only one trigger in the situation. There are not multiple triggers while the spell is still in the process of being cast. It's always the same trigger, which occurred at the moment "when you see a creature . . .".
Yeah, and that trigger still exists. Because no time has gone by. The counterspells are instantaneous. they resolve instantaneously. We haven't moved the clock forward even a split second. We're still, chronologically, AT the same exact moment that the first counterspell was cast. We haven't left it.
A reaction is an instant response to a trigger
There are combat rules for reactions that describe how they work in the Reactions section and also in the section on the Ready Action and also in the section on Opportunity Attacks. The trigger occurs and you instantly respond, like a reflex. Or, you can choose to ignore the trigger.
Yep, and as the trigger is still there, RW2 chooses to react to it.
You don't get to ignore the trigger and then come back to it later to react to it. That's not how it works.
Absolutely. Thankfully for RW2 it isn't "later".
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.
No, again, the timing is very clear with counterspell. Counterspell happens while the target spell is IN THE PROCESS of being cast. So the counterspell always happens in the mid-point of casting of the target spell. In the process.
Reactions happen when triggered. If you pass on the trigger, you don't get to change your mind later.
No, again, the timing is very clear with counterspell. Counterspell happens while the target spell is IN THE PROCESS of being cast. So the counterspell always happens in the mid-point of casting of the target spell. In the process.
Reactions happen when triggered. If you pass on the trigger, you don't get to change your mind later.
But RW2 hasn't passed on the trigger. Also, it isn't "later". Time hasn't gone forward even a split second in-game.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
the firststaement isn't truew, 5E clearly describes when the reaction is taken. in the case of counterspell it is has the spell is cast, in the middle of casting the spell.
the second statement...
its not a mistake considering you have only a single reaction per turn.
sure you can use your reaction to protect yourself when you are casting that crucial fireball. but now you cnanot counter the fireball of your enemy when he's gonna cast it. so its a double edged sword. same with your exemple... you used the reaction to counter an attack of opportunity, but if there is more then one enemy, you can only do it once. and now you'll be left at the mercy of whoever else wants to attack you. so int he end, yes you protected yourself, but now you have used up your reaction until it comes back to the beginning of your turn. that alone is what renders reactions potent. because they are double edged swords, when you use them is important cause there is no turning back. unlike actions and bonus actions which are just blatantly used the same way over and over again. if you were asking me, i'd say things like action surge are far more dangerous then reactions will ever be.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It's not a balance problem. It just produces the occasional irrational outcome which would be avoided by not permitting on-turn reactions.
i do not get what you mean by "irrationnal outcome", i've been playing for along time and my players have used reactions for many a thing. i have never seen irrationnal outcomes happens. even in your exemple, i dont see it as irrationnal. taking your own exemple... i dont get the "they attack you" if you are using sentinel,they are clearly attacking someone else otherwise you wouldn't have that happen to you and its clearly stated that if they have sentinel too, this won't happen.
i'm just lost to know what you mean by irrationnal outcome as i dont see such outcome in your exemple.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I'm not so sure that I'm loving the timing of events in that example. When the Red Wizard #2 "then jumps in" it seems to me that it might be too late to react to the fireball trigger at that point. Since the subtle counterspell is not a valid target, perhaps there is just no valid target for this third counterspell.
If instead, fireball was cast and then immediately two opponents both react and both cast counterspell in response to this -- then the fireball caster is in a bind because he would not be able to counterspell both incoming counterspells since he has only one reaction.
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
I would not allow that. In my opinion, Red Wizard #2's window of opportunity to react to the fireball is during step 1. You cannot pass on that opportunity and watch other events happen and then analyze the results and then decide to react to the spell that was cast in step 1 all the way down in step 5. The first counterspell was cast in reaction to the fireball being cast and that was the only reaction taken in response to that trigger. When that first counterspell fails, the fireball is cast. There is no other event to react to in order to stop this.
Thanks for the welcome !
You have an interesting point of view. I thought that you meant that red wizard#2 tried to counterspell the blue Sorcerer counterspell because in my way of thinking you only can take a Reaction in the EXACT same time that you notice the triggering effect.
For me a Reaction is an automatic response, like a reflex action or a well trained muscle memory movement.
* In the example you posted, assuming the 3 wizards can see each other, I would have ruled:
1. Blue Sorcerer cast fireball.
2. Both red wizards notice the fireball being casted, now they have the oportunity to take the Reaction. Only Red Wizard#1 decides to cast counterspell.
3. Blue Sorcerer casts subtle counterspell.
Red wizard#2 can't cast counterspell to counter the fireball, because the trigering effect was that he noticed the counterspell of his partner being "somehow" countered.
If when both red wizards notice that the Blue Sorcerer is casting fireball and they both decide to cast counterspell, then the Blue Sorcerer also notices that the 2 Red Wizards are casting counterspell, so he would probably decide to let the counterspells happen because now there is nothing he can do, he is being outnumbered.
(I am aware that his creates some incongruities because both are spending a spell slot to counter only one spell).
* I also like your way of thinking/ruling and is maybe less problematic. I imagine It like if the three casters were playing a card game where all the spells go to the stack:
1. Blue Sorcerer casts {Fireball}
2. Red Wizard#1 casts {Counter target spell} in response to fireball.
3. Blue Sorcerer casts {Counter target spell. This spell can't be countered} in response to Counterspell.
(Initial counterspell is countered, but fireball is still on the stack)
4. Red Wizard #2 cast {Counterspell} in response to fireball.
5. Blue Sorcerer doesn't have response and the stack resolves: nothing happened.
I still think that in this way Red Wizard#2 played a bit dirty for 5e because he waited for the Blue Sorcerer to counter #1 counterspell, he didn't reacted inmediatly as a response of noticing the fireball being casted, he waited and reacted when he noticed that the counterspell his partner was casting failed. In my opinon now is too late for him, and a fireball is approaching to his face.
Edit: grammar.
Because of the timing specified in the counterspell spell, the initial spell still is an eligible trigger for red wizard #2, even after the resolution of the red v blue counterspells. Because the fireball is still in the process of being cast.
Why? Because the counterspells happened at this state: "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." Which means this trigger is 100% valid: "you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."
Blue wizard is still:
. A creature.
. That Red Wizard 2 can see
. With 60ft
. And IS casting a spell
Eligible target, trigger goes off, RW2 counterspells the Fireball.
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 problem is that RW#2 should not be able to react to the failure of the counterspell.
Interrupt timing is a complicated problem in turn-based systems, MtG seems to have made several passes at it and the current priority rules are... not something I care to try and understand at the moment, but apparently complicated enough that people write articles explaining how it works. 5e does not want to be that kind of game, which means its timing rules are kinda vague. It would be reasonable for a DM to rule that all counterspells (to the fireball) must be declared before any are resolved, but the rules don't require that interpretation (nor do they require otherwise).
Agreed.
RW1 and RW2 could BOTH decide to counterspell the fireball when it is cast. Then at least one of the counterspells is more likely to succeed.
However, I wouldn't allow RW#2 (or a character in a similar circumstance) to react to the failure of the RW1 counterspell since the only way they have to know that it failed is when the fireball goes off - there is no indication prior to the fireball going off that the counterspell failed. The decision for RW2 to cast counterspell occurs when the fireball is cast and not when the counterspell fails.
This situation also applies to an upcast fireball that is counterspelled by a 3rd level slot. RW#1 needs to make a skill check to determine success or failure ... and that die roll is NOT a trigger for casting another counterspell.
The trigger for counterspell is when you see a creature within 60' casting a spell. In my opinion, that moment does not last indefinitely, a series of opponents can't have each cast a counterspell in turn until one succeeds. The decision to cast counterspell happens at the moment the spell is cast. At least that is how I would rule it.
I consider that a reasonable interpretation that is permitted but not compelled by the rules.
It doesn't need to be indefinitely. It just need to be true at the same time RW2 wants to counterpell. And it is. So he can.
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 are you claiming this? Where are the rules that support your claim? At best (from your perspective) the timing is not well defined. A Fireball spell has a casting time of "1 action" and Counterspell has a casting time of "1 reaction". How large are these units exactly? How much time does each of these represent? Where does it say that two reactions can be completed with time to spare before an action completes? An action can take any amount of time between instantaneous and 6 seconds. A reaction is "an instant response to a trigger" but the execution time of that response is not necessarily instantaneous -- it's undefined. The spellcasting rules suggest that "These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about". Ok, so how does that fraction of a second compare to the spell that is cast with a casting time of "1 action"? That's undefined.
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.
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.
First, you don't know that the Fireball is still being cast. Maybe there was some overlap. Maybe the first Counterspell was executed just in the nick of time before Fireball was completed. But by the time the 2nd Counterspell finishes the casting process for the Fireball has long since completed. The time that each of the 3 spells takes to execute is undefined beyond saying that the first one takes "1 action" and the 2nd and 3rd spells each take "1 reaction".
But if you don't like that argument, the one provided by David is even better. Remember, in this scenario the 2nd Counterspell was cast subtly. So, the caster of the 3rd Counterspell cannot have known about it. The only way to know that the first Counterspell somehow failed is that you actually see the effects of the Fireball succeeding after the process of the casting of the Fireball has completed. There is literally no way to wait and observe whether or not someone else's Counterspell fails and THEN react to the Fireball in response to that information -- there is nothing to react to. You either react to the Fireball before you know the outcome of other Counterspelling efforts or you don't react at all.
Yes, we do.
That's not possible given the description given to us by the counterspell spell itself.
They're not undefined. Read the first sentence of counterspell again.
Counterspell is both instantaneous, and happens during the process of casting another spell. The timing here isn't at all subjective, or undefined. It is very clear.
You're welcome to handle information differently, and hide the results of the counterspells from the other spellcasters until a full resolution takes place. But even if you do, after the counterspell is counterspelled is still an eligible moment for RW2 to cast his counterspell. If you want to impair the knowledge he has on which to make that decision you'd be free to, but he still can do it should he choose to.
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.
Yes, we agree that both wizards can cast Counterspell at the same time as a reaction to the Fireball -- but neither would know the result of the other when they make that decision. You cannot react to the Fireball after knowing the result of the Counterspell -- there is nothing to react to. Meaning, if the 1st Counterspell failed then the Fireball has already been cast -- there is no other event between these two results. So, you react to the Fireball or you don't.
Consider the case where a foe casts Fireball but it was upcast. Both wizards are only capable of casting Counterspell at the default level. So the DM describes how the fireball is being cast and Wizard #1's player jumps in and announces that he is casting Counterspell. The DM looks at Wizard #2's player and asks "anything from you?" to which he responds with "no, I'm going to wait and see what happens". Fine. In this situation, an ability check is now required to see if Counterspell is successful. Player 1 rolls the die and fails the ability check. Now, Player 2 might attempt to jump in here. Or, the DM might say something like "The Counterspell fails and now the Fir--". "Wait!" cries Player 2. "After that Counterspell fails but before the Fireball is cast, I will now cast Counterspell!"
The DM says "Yeah, that's a 100% hard no." And he would be correct. It's pure metagaming that Player 2 knows that Counterspell has failed before Fireball has been cast. Wizard 2 DOES NOT know this. He cannot see the dice being rolled. There is no way for him to know. There is no event that can cause him to react at this moment. He was given the chance to react to the Fireball when he saw the foe casting it and he declined. There is no other moment or event in which he can react to this -- the Fireball has been cast. It's too late.
The trigger for Counterspell is "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". This is a moment in time that you can react to. It's a trigger. It's not an ongoing thing or a repeating thing like "oh, I can still see him" or "oh, I saw him before, then something happened, and now I see him again". It's the instant that you see and recognize the situation -- that's your trigger. There is only one trigger in the situation. There are not multiple triggers while the spell is still in the process of being cast. It's always the same trigger, which occurred at the moment "when you see a creature . . .".
There are combat rules for reactions that describe how they work in the Reactions section and also in the section on the Ready Action and also in the section on Opportunity Attacks. The trigger occurs and you instantly respond, like a reflex. Or, you can choose to ignore the trigger. You don't get to ignore the trigger and then come back to it later to react to it. That's not how it works.
No, again, the timing is very clear with counterspell. Counterspell happens while the target spell is IN THE PROCESS of being cast. So the counterspell always happens in the mid-point of casting of the target spell. In the process.
"in the process"
The timing is black and white here. The very first line of counterspell says as much. If you cannot acknowledge this you're not going to get an accurate understanding of the spell.
That's not how reactions work. The DM doesn't ask everyone who has a reaction-ability every opportunity that reaction can trigger. Have you ever played the game with a character with silvery barbs and the very thought of stopping to ask Player B every....single...time.... a d20 is rolled. In all situations. Constantly.
Anyway. No. I reject this example because that's not how the game is played.The DM wouldn't look to player 2 and ask if he ALSO wants to cast counterspell. He'd go straight to resolving the Player 1's counterspell. It is an instantaneous effect.
The DM says "Ok. Make a check." and they resolve it.
None of this happens.
You also don't know if it is metagaming. TBH. You're assuming it is but how are we to know if there is obvious signs when spells are countered or not? It might be super obvious the counterspell was counterspelled. Ala like crashing beams of magical energy or whatever. The crunchy rules are silent on that. You're assuming there is no way for in-game creatures to know? But if the rules allow for this reaction (and they do) then it is clear there is a way for the in-game creatures to know. It just isn't important enough to lock it down as one specific description as to why.
Yeah, and that trigger still exists. Because no time has gone by. The counterspells are instantaneous. they resolve instantaneously. We haven't moved the clock forward even a split second. We're still, chronologically, AT the same exact moment that the first counterspell was cast. We haven't left it.
Yep, and as the trigger is still there, RW2 chooses to react to it.
Absolutely. Thankfully for RW2 it isn't "later".
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.
Reactions happen when triggered. If you pass on the trigger, you don't get to change your mind later.
But RW2 hasn't passed on the trigger. Also, it isn't "later". Time hasn't gone forward even a split second in-game.
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.