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 disagree. Yes, the spell resolves instantaneously. But the casting time is not "instantaneous", the casting time is "1 reaction". In this scenario, the first Counterspell was cast normally which means it has a somatic component. The rules for somatic components state "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures". In order to perform a gesture time must pass while doing so. It is literally impossible to do anything if time is actually frozen. Even in the case of the subtle Counterspell with no spell components I would rule that the casting time is not instantaneous, it is still "1 reaction" -- you must actually react to something.
In the rule for reactions we have "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger". Don't confuse this with an instantaneous time frame. An instant response just means that you respond "right away" before anything else happens. A trigger occurs, and then you respond to it instantly in some way. Again, if time is actually frozen then it would be physically impossible to actually react in any way. Things in the game occur sequentially, not simultaneously.
On the subject of Counterspell, I have a question for you which might help to clarify your stance on this whole scenario.
It is possible to cast Counterspell as a Reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Suppose you walk around the corner and at that moment you see a foe casting a spell. As it turns out, he has just begun casting a ritual spell that will take 10 minutes to cast. In your opinion, are you obligated to cast Counterspell at this moment or can you watch things develop and decide to cast Counterspell at any moment over the next 10 minutes?
On the subject of Counterspell, I have a question for you which might help to clarify your stance on this whole scenario.
It is possible to cast Counterspell as a Reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Suppose you walk around the corner and at that moment you see a foe casting a spell. As it turns out, he has just begun casting a ritual spell that will take 10 minutes to cast. In your opinion, are you obligated to cast Counterspell at this moment or can you watch things develop and decide to cast Counterspell at any moment over the next 10 minutes?
You can cast counterspell at any point in time where you're eligible to take a reaction, have the spell prepared, have a spell slot to burn, can meet the casting requirements, and the listed spell trigger conditions = true.
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.
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 disagree. Yes, the spell resolves instantaneously. But the casting time is not "instantaneous", the casting time is "1 reaction". In this scenario, the first Counterspell was cast normally which means it has a somatic component. The rules for somatic components state "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures". In order to perform a gesture time must pass while doing so. It is literally impossible to do anything if time is actually frozen. Even in the case of the subtle Counterspell with no spell components I would rule that the casting time is not instantaneous, it is still "1 reaction" -- you must actually react to something.
Okay but reactions are instant too.
"Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s."
So the reaction is instant, the duration is instantaneous, and it interrupts the spell "in the process" of casting it.
Any way you slice it exactly zero time has elapsed. And certainly not any meaningful time. We are still "in the process" of casting the spell. The exact same trigger exists for RW2 to react to as RW1 reacted to. It is exactly the same moment in time.
In the rule for reactions we have "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger". Don't confuse this with an instantaneous time frame. An instant response just means that you respond "right away" before anything else happens. A trigger occurs, and then you respond to it instantly in some way. Again, if time is actually frozen then it would be physically impossible to actually react in any way. Things in the game occur sequentially, not simultaneously.
Right, so a counterspell happens 'right away' and take 'instantaneous' time for the effect to be applied.
So no time has passed.
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.
My ruling for multi-casting is that since you're unable to cast the spell if you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, it's not possible to cast a spell as a reaction while also casting a spell as an action if they use the same components. So if you're casting a spell with verbal, somatic or material component, attempting to cast another spell in the middle of it would be impossible if it also require the same spell component. You can't attempt chanting mystic words if you already are doing so, likewise you can't make gesture with an hand already doing gesture for another spell.
(I assume Cornelius has another free hand in the SAC exemple ; )
But RW2 hasn't passed on the trigger. Also, it isn't "later". Time hasn't gone forward even a split second in-game.
The DM announces "BS is casting Fireball. How do you respond?" If RW2 doesn't declare he's casting counterspell, he's passed. RW2 cannot declare "I'll cast counterspell if RW1 fails" because that's not a listed trigger for counterspell.
Just to be clear, in the case of the 10 minute ritual is your interpretation that you can see the spell being cast right away but then you could be watching that spell being cast for the entire 10 minutes and you can decide to react to it at any time during those 10 minutes? That is not my interpretation of a reaction "that you take when you see a creature . . . casting a spell" but I can see how some might interpret it that way so it would be useful to know your stance on that. Just use this specific example instead of trying to explain your interpretation in generalities, it would be more clear that way.
"Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s."
So the reaction is instant, the duration is instantaneous, and it interrupts the spell "in the process" of casting it.
Any way you slice it exactly zero time has elapsed.
No, I disagree with that conclusion. Some amount of time must pass by definition. If time is frozen you literally cannot react. You are frozen. A reaction is an "instant response". This just means that it happens right away -- in other words, we interrupt everything else that might be happening in the game and we resolve this reaction immediately (but not instantaneously, since that's impossible). It's the next thing that happens in the game. Not at the same time -- it's the next thing.
The exact same trigger exists for RW2 to react to as RW1 reacted to. It is exactly the same moment in time.
So, I think that this is actually two seperate things that we disagree on. But I'm not sure, which is why I was trying to get some clarification through my 10 minute ritual example.
First, as for the exact same trigger existing . . . To me, a trigger is something that occurs at a snapshot in time. It literally triggers a reaction -- like a reflex. Think of a doctor smacking someone's knee and his leg kicks up. Something happens and there is an instant response to it. That's a trigger and a reaction in game terms. In my opinion, a trigger cannot be ongoing and the same trigger cannot repeat. It's a snapshot in time. In this case, you see someone casting a spell and your instant response to that is to cast Counterspell . . . or you don't.
I think that the second thing where we differ is that it's impossible to execute a reaction from start to finish instantaneously. The effect of the spell can have an instantaneous effect once you cast it, but the spell does have a casting time. The casting of the spell is how you are reacting in this case. So, there is a trigger and then you execute some task in reaction to that trigger. After you finish executing this task, it cannot still be the same moment in time as when the trigger is occuring -- because in that case you could not have possibly reacted. I have this feeling that I'm repeating myself now so I'll just end this post!
But RW2 hasn't passed on the trigger. Also, it isn't "later". Time hasn't gone forward even a split second in-game.
The DM announces "BS is casting Fireball. How do you respond?" If RW2 doesn't declare he's casting counterspell, he's passed. RW2 cannot declare "I'll cast counterspell if RW1 fails" because that's not a listed trigger for counterspell.
I'm sorry, I've been DMing for like 30 years now on a weekly+ basic and I've never once said "[insert npc name] is casting fireball. How do you respond?", nor has a single DM I've ever played with. So I gotta at this point ask if we're even talking about Dungeons and Dragons or do you have some different game in mind?
"How do you respond?" Does he then stop and ask each player at the table by name? Every time any NPC does something he stops. Looks to the players one at at a time and asks "How do you respond?"
Please. You know that isn't how anyone plays the game. You know, I know, anyone reading this knows.
The order it'd go down is this:
DM: BS is casting Fireball RW1: Oh I cast Counterspell! DM: Ok, your counterspell gets subtly counterspelled RW1. RW2: Oh, I'm counterspelling too. DM: Hmm, okay, he's still in the process of casting his fireball at this point, okay, you counterspell his fireball RW2.
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.
That is not my interpretation of a reaction "that you take when you see a creature . . . casting a spell" but I can see how some might interpret it that way so it would be useful to know your stance on that.
How is that confusing? You're taking the reaction while staring at a creature, who is within 60ft, and who is casting a spell. That's defacto the criteria. What part of the spell trigger criteria is absent? Be specific.
"Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s."
So the reaction is instant, the duration is instantaneous, and it interrupts the spell "in the process" of casting it.
Any way you slice it exactly zero time has elapsed.
No, I disagree with that conclusion. Some amount of time must pass by definition. If time is frozen you literally cannot react. You are frozen. A reaction is an "instant response". This just means that it happens right away -- in other words, we interrupt everything else that might be happening in the game and we resolve this reaction immediately (but not instantaneously, since that's impossible). It's the next thing that happens in the game. Not at the same time -- it's the next thing.
"but not instantaneously, since that's impossible"
So really you're just arguing against the Instantaneous effect of the spell? I'm sorry but it is an Instantaneous spell. Would something happening instantaneously be impossible IRL? Sure. But this is magic. And make believe. It is all fictional and the laws of physics need not apply. The rules for the spell are that it is Instantaneous. It is.
If you wanna make it a non-instantaneous effect in your games you can and should homebrew it to be as such. But word of warning, it'll have some super weird side effects if you do.
The exact same trigger exists for RW2 to react to as RW1 reacted to. It is exactly the same moment in time.
So, I think that this is actually two seperate things that we disagree on. But I'm not sure, which is why I was trying to get some clarification through my 10 minute ritual example.
First, as for the exact same trigger existing . . . To me, a trigger is something that occurs at a snapshot in time.
There is no reason to come to that conclusion. A trigger is eligible so long as it is ongoing. Say you make the trigger condition for a Held Attack Action with your bow as "I hold My attack to shoot as one of the goblins runs forward across the field" You could choose to take that reaction at any point that they're running across the field. So long as the trigger condition remains = true your reaction is a valid one.
It literally triggers a reaction -- like a reflex. Think of a doctor smacking someone's knee and his leg kicks up. Something happens and there is an instant response to it. That's a trigger and a reaction in game terms. In my opinion, a trigger cannot be ongoing and the same trigger cannot repeat. It's a snapshot in time. In this case, you see someone casting a spell and your instant response to that is to cast Counterspell . . . or you don't.
Your opinion isn't supported by the rules of 5e. You're welcome to have it. But you should alert the players at your tables that you plan to deviate from official 5e rules on the topic of reaction timing. It is best to be upfront with them about these sorts of changes to basic gameplay.
To be clear, the spellcasting section gives all the guidance we need on reaction cast spells "If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so."
It says that the spell itself tells us when it can be cast. So what does counterspell say? We've covered it already but those at the back of the class:
Creature
we can see
casts a spell
within 60ft
All of these are true for RW2. So the reaction is eligible in response to this trigger.
I think that the second thing where we differ is that it's impossible to execute a reaction from start to finish instantaneously. The effect of the spell can have an instantaneous effect once you cast it, but the spell does have a casting time. The casting of the spell is how you are reacting in this case. So, there is a trigger and then you execute some task in reaction to that trigger. After you finish executing this task, it cannot still be the same moment in time as when the trigger is occuring -- because in that case you could not have possibly reacted.
You're approaching all of these arguments from gut instincts and not from what the rules tell you. I've stressed this before but 5e lets you homebrew stuff when there is this type of conflict but you really shouldn't confuse your gut instinct for the rules of the game. If you read the relevant rules they will tell you that reactions are instant responses, and that counterspell is an instantaneous spell. They'll also tell you that counterspell interrupts a spell in the process of being cast and so we have a very concrete timeline established by the rules here, even if your gut disagrees with that timeline we'll need to defer to the rules when discussing how this works officially. The subtle counterspell interrupts the RW1 counterspell mid-cast, which itself was interrupting the fireball midcast. Those are instantaneously resolved which puts exactly where we left off, fireball in the process of being cast: thus an eligible trigger for RW2 to counterspell.
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.
DM: BS is casting Fireball RW1: Oh I cast Counterspell! DM: Ok, your counterspell gets subtly counterspelled RW1. RW2: Oh, I'm counterspelling too. DM: Hmm, okay, he's still in the process of casting his fireball at this point, okay, you counterspell his fireball RW2.
Nope. The DM is under absolutely no requirement to let you respond to how someone else responded to the same event.
To me if multiple creature cast counterspell in reaction to the same spell cast, they will be handled simultaneously in parrallel giving more chance to interrupt the spellcasting. No caster can wait for others to cast spells and see if they interrupt a spellcasting or not before attempting themselves too unless the spell cast has a casting time longer than an action, bonus action or reaction.
So really you're just arguing against the Instantaneous effect of the spell? I'm sorry but it is an Instantaneous spell.
What?? I am absolutely NOT, nor have I ever argued such a thing. But I believe you are smart enough to already know that so now you are just arguing in bad faith. The duration of the spell is instantaneous -- it says it right there in the spell description.
However, the casting time of the spell is NOT instantaneous, it is 1 Reaction. It also says that right there in the spell description.
A trigger is eligible so long as it is ongoing. Say you make the trigger condition for a Held Attack Action with your bow as "I hold My attack to shoot as one of the goblins runs forward across the field" You could choose to take that reaction at any point that they're running across the field. So long as the trigger condition remains = true your reaction is a valid one.
A trigger cannot be ongoing. It is a snapshot in time of an event that causes some consequence. My first hit on a plain english search for the definition is: "cause (an event or situation) to happen or exist". There is nothing in common usage or within the rules of the game that support the concept of an ongoing trigger. If you come up with something for your Ready action that is intentionally vague, the DM should ask you to clarify: "So, as soon as a goblin runs forward then?"
So what does counterspell say? We've covered it already but those at the back of the class:
Creature
we can see
casts a spell
within 60ft
No. It does not say that. The reaction can occur "when you see" a creature. It's NOT a creature that "we can see".
Consider a situation where you arrive at home and expect the house to be empty and your thoughts are elsewhere. You turn the corner into the kitchen where your friend is standing there waiting for you. When you see your friend, you jump back and scream. Then you say, "Haha, I didn't expect to see you there, you startled me." In this situation, seeing your friend was the trigger and your reaction was to jump back and scream. Now you are looking at him and having a conversation. You can still see him, but this cannot trigger you to jump back and scream -- the trigger has passed, even though you can still see him.
The subtle counterspell interrupts the RW1 counterspell mid-cast, which itself was interrupting the fireball midcast. Those are instantaneously resolved which puts exactly where we left off
Well, this has already been debunked so there's not much more to say on the matter. Yes, spells with an instantaneous duration are resolved instantaneously. But they do have a casting time. Unless the casting time is also instantaneous then some time must have passed by definition. It is impossible to actually do anything if time is frozen.
There's actually a 9th level spell which takes advantage of that fact. It's called Time Stop. "You briefly stop the flow of time for everyone but yourself. No time passes for other creatures, while you take 1d4 + 1 turns in a row, during which you can use actions and move as normal." Are you proposing that while I take my actions during these 1d4 + 1 turns that you can take Reactions because they involve instant responses that are resolved instantaneously? Even though time is frozen for you? Good luck with that.
DM: BS is casting Fireball RW1: Oh I cast Counterspell! DM: Ok, your counterspell gets subtly counterspelled RW1. RW2: Oh, I'm counterspelling too. DM: Hmm, okay, he's still in the process of casting his fireball at this point, okay, you counterspell his fireball RW2.
Nope. The DM is under absolutely no requirement to let you respond to how someone else responded to the same event.
Yeah DMs are free to deviate feom RAW whenever they want. Totally agree.
So really you're just arguing against the Instantaneous effect of the spell? I'm sorry but it is an Instantaneous spell.
What?? I am absolutely NOT, nor have I ever argued such a thing. But I believe you are smart enough to already know that so now you are just arguing in bad faith. The duration of the spell is instantaneous -- it says it right there in the spell description.
However, the casting time of the spell is NOT instantaneous, it is 1 Reaction. It also says that right there in the spell description.
This was already covered. An intant [reaction] instantaneous [counterspell duration] that happen in the process of the spell cast [counterspell description] leaves you at exactly this state: spell in the process of being cast.
Simple as. There is no way around that. The timing is black and white in the rules.
A trigger is eligible so long as it is ongoing. Say you make the trigger condition for a Held Attack Action with your bow as "I hold My attack to shoot as one of the goblins runs forward across the field" You could choose to take that reaction at any point that they're running across the field. So long as the trigger condition remains = true your reaction is a valid one.
A trigger cannot be ongoing. It is a snapshot in time of an event that causes some consequence. My first hit on a plain english search for the definition is: "cause (an event or situation) to happen or exist". There is nothing in common usage or within the rules of the game that support the concept of an ongoing trigger. If you come up with something for your Ready action that is intentionally vague, the DM should ask you to clarify: "So, as soon as a goblin runs forward then?"
You're going to need to back that up with rules. I see that you're claiming triggers cannot be ongoing but there is no reason to believe that is true based on the text of the rulebooks. Unless there is some passage you know of specifically?
So what does counterspell say? We've covered it already but those at the back of the class:
Creature
we can see
casts a spell
within 60ft
No. It does not say that. The reaction can occur "when you see" a creature. It's NOT a creature that "we can see".
... what? Seeing the creature is absolutely required.
Consider a situation where you arrive at home and expect the house to be empty and your thoughts are elsewhere. You turn the corner into the kitchen where your friend is standing there waiting for you. When you see your friend, you jump back and scream. Then you say, "Haha, I didn't expect to see you there, you startled me." In this situation, seeing your friend was the trigger and your reaction was to jump back and scream. Now you are looking at him and having a conversation. You can still see him, but this cannot trigger you to jump back and scream -- the trigger has passed, even though you can still see him.
If that is the trigger, the reaction is valid at any point that you can see him. I believe the trigger condition you want is "When you see your friend while not expecting to see him, you jump back and scream."
This trigger ends with the result you're looking for. But just "When you see your friend, you jump back and scream." results in entirely too much screaming.
The subtle counterspell interrupts the RW1 counterspell mid-cast, which itself was interrupting the fireball midcast. Those are instantaneously resolved which puts exactly where we left off
Well, this has already been debunked so there's not much more to say on the matter.
It was in no way debunked. Because they're factually true, and directly from the text of the rulebook.
Yes, spells with an instantaneous duration are resolved instantaneously. But they do have a casting time. Unless the casting time is also instantaneous then some time must have passed by definition.
The casting time for counterspell is a reaction, which is instant.
An instant instantaneous effect.
It is impossible to actually do anything if time is frozen.
Fun fact about reactions: Some even time travel! Yep that's right. Take your run of the mill Opportunity Attack. The trigger is a creature leaving you reach. But the reaction attack happens before the creature leaves your reach. Isn't that wild?
Reaction timing is handled by instructions provided. Even if they bend or even break your gut instinct for the timeline. That is by design.
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.
Yeah DMs are free to deviate feom RAW whenever they want. Totally agree.
It's not deviating from RAW. "When you see X" is an instantaneous effect. If you walk around a corner and see someone casting a spell, you can cast counterspell. If you decide to wait around (say, they're casting a ritual) you can't -- unless you first cover your eyes or otherwise blind yourself, then become able to see it again, at which point you have another opportunity.
Yeah DMs are free to deviate feom RAW whenever they want. Totally agree.
It's not deviating from RAW. "When you see X" is an instantaneous effect. If you walk around a corner and see someone casting a spell, you can cast counterspell. If you decide to wait around (say, they're casting a ritual) you can't -- unless you first cover your eyes or otherwise blind yourself, then become able to see it again, at which point you have another opportunity.
That's both silly to visualize, but also not true.
While the trigger conditions are met, you can cast the spell.
For the same reason if you're falling some massive distance you needn't use feather fall immediately, you can wait until you're approaching the ground. So long as the trigger requirements are met at the time you wanna use your reaction, you're golden.
Per the rulebook, anyway.
It feels like bits and pieces of the readied action are getting mistakenly applied to all reactions. Is that what's going on here?
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The main support in the rulebook for a trigger being a snapshot event is that you instantly respond to them. You don't delay and then respond, that's not allowed. You must respond instantly. The rulebooks do not tend to elaborate once they've said something. It would be helpful if they did, but they don't. Getting it right requires a bit of reading comprehension at times.
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?
Every time someone mentions that all of this happens while time is basically frozen, I keep meaning to cite this rule but I keep forgetting. The rule comes from PHB, Chapter 10:
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event.
So, when you react you instantly respond -- but the execution of that response takes some time by rule. Note that "a fraction of a second" is NOT instantaneous, by definition. It is some amount of time greater than 0 but less than 1 second.
This leads me to once again bring up the possibility of overlap that was dismissed without adequate thought. Suppose the fireball is upcast and therefore this particular fireball is cast relatively quickly. For example, maybe it is cast in 0.5 seconds (who knows? It takes "1 action" to cast it, which is a somewhat undefined amount of time). Ok, well suppose the casting time for Counterspell for this particular wizard is typically 0.2 seconds. He attempts to counterspell the upcast fireball and has to make a die roll. Well, maybe the wizard isn't having a great day today and his reaction time is a little slow. Maybe this time is took him 0.6 seconds to cast Counterspell and this is the "reason" why the die roll failed -- he was simply too slow. In such a case, if another Wizard was waiting for that Counterspell to fail then he is out of luck -- the fireball was already cast. In another scenario maybe the sorcerer began casting Fireball but his somatic motions were obscured from view for the first 0.4 seconds -- but then the Wizard sees the rest of the somatic along with the verbal and reacts. Well, unfortunately now that Fireball will be cast 0.1 second later and so his normal reaction time of 0.2 seconds just isn't good enough this time, and again it's the "reason" why the die roll failed. Or maybe it wasn't. There won't always be overlap when Counterspell fails, but sometimes there will be.
And yet, the snapshot trigger was missed anyway since he didn't instantly respond to it, so he's out of luck either way.
The main support in the rulebook for a trigger being a snapshot event is that you instantly respond to them. You don't delay and then respond, that's not allowed. You must respond instantly. The rulebooks do not tend to elaborate once they've said something. It would be helpful if they did, but they don't. Getting it right requires a bit of reading comprehension at times.
That's both silly to visualize, but also not true.
While the trigger conditions are met, you can cast the spell.
Silly doesn't mean false. RAW reactions are a mess.
Trigger conditions must be reacted to when the trigger occurs. This does in fact prevent HALO jumping with feather fall.
You're both saying roughly the same thing but the rulebooks don't say this. You react instantly to the trigger *when* you choose to use your reaction. But 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 falls" is the entirety of the fall. "When a creature casts a spell" is the entirety of the spellcasting process. If those are your triggers then your reaction is valid while those statements=true.
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.
I disagree. Yes, the spell resolves instantaneously. But the casting time is not "instantaneous", the casting time is "1 reaction". In this scenario, the first Counterspell was cast normally which means it has a somatic component. The rules for somatic components state "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures". In order to perform a gesture time must pass while doing so. It is literally impossible to do anything if time is actually frozen. Even in the case of the subtle Counterspell with no spell components I would rule that the casting time is not instantaneous, it is still "1 reaction" -- you must actually react to something.
In the rule for reactions we have "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger". Don't confuse this with an instantaneous time frame. An instant response just means that you respond "right away" before anything else happens. A trigger occurs, and then you respond to it instantly in some way. Again, if time is actually frozen then it would be physically impossible to actually react in any way. Things in the game occur sequentially, not simultaneously.
On the subject of Counterspell, I have a question for you which might help to clarify your stance on this whole scenario.
It is possible to cast Counterspell as a Reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Suppose you walk around the corner and at that moment you see a foe casting a spell. As it turns out, he has just begun casting a ritual spell that will take 10 minutes to cast. In your opinion, are you obligated to cast Counterspell at this moment or can you watch things develop and decide to cast Counterspell at any moment over the next 10 minutes?
You can cast counterspell at any point in time where you're eligible to take a reaction, have the spell prepared, have a spell slot to burn, can meet the casting requirements, and the listed spell trigger conditions = true.
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.
Okay but reactions are instant too.
"Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s."
So the reaction is instant, the duration is instantaneous, and it interrupts the spell "in the process" of casting it.
Any way you slice it exactly zero time has elapsed. And certainly not any meaningful time. We are still "in the process" of casting the spell. The exact same trigger exists for RW2 to react to as RW1 reacted to. It is exactly the same moment in time.
Right, so a counterspell happens 'right away' and take 'instantaneous' time for the effect to be applied.
So no time has passed.
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.
My ruling for multi-casting is that since you're unable to cast the spell if you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, it's not possible to cast a spell as a reaction while also casting a spell as an action if they use the same components. So if you're casting a spell with verbal, somatic or material component, attempting to cast another spell in the middle of it would be impossible if it also require the same spell component. You can't attempt chanting mystic words if you already are doing so, likewise you can't make gesture with an hand already doing gesture for another spell.
(I assume Cornelius has another free hand in the SAC exemple ; )
The DM announces "BS is casting Fireball. How do you respond?" If RW2 doesn't declare he's casting counterspell, he's passed. RW2 cannot declare "I'll cast counterspell if RW1 fails" because that's not a listed trigger for counterspell.
Just to be clear, in the case of the 10 minute ritual is your interpretation that you can see the spell being cast right away but then you could be watching that spell being cast for the entire 10 minutes and you can decide to react to it at any time during those 10 minutes? That is not my interpretation of a reaction "that you take when you see a creature . . . casting a spell" but I can see how some might interpret it that way so it would be useful to know your stance on that. Just use this specific example instead of trying to explain your interpretation in generalities, it would be more clear that way.
No, I disagree with that conclusion. Some amount of time must pass by definition. If time is frozen you literally cannot react. You are frozen. A reaction is an "instant response". This just means that it happens right away -- in other words, we interrupt everything else that might be happening in the game and we resolve this reaction immediately (but not instantaneously, since that's impossible). It's the next thing that happens in the game. Not at the same time -- it's the next thing.
So, I think that this is actually two seperate things that we disagree on. But I'm not sure, which is why I was trying to get some clarification through my 10 minute ritual example.
First, as for the exact same trigger existing . . . To me, a trigger is something that occurs at a snapshot in time. It literally triggers a reaction -- like a reflex. Think of a doctor smacking someone's knee and his leg kicks up. Something happens and there is an instant response to it. That's a trigger and a reaction in game terms. In my opinion, a trigger cannot be ongoing and the same trigger cannot repeat. It's a snapshot in time. In this case, you see someone casting a spell and your instant response to that is to cast Counterspell . . . or you don't.
I think that the second thing where we differ is that it's impossible to execute a reaction from start to finish instantaneously. The effect of the spell can have an instantaneous effect once you cast it, but the spell does have a casting time. The casting of the spell is how you are reacting in this case. So, there is a trigger and then you execute some task in reaction to that trigger. After you finish executing this task, it cannot still be the same moment in time as when the trigger is occuring -- because in that case you could not have possibly reacted. I have this feeling that I'm repeating myself now so I'll just end this post!
I'm sorry, I've been DMing for like 30 years now on a weekly+ basic and I've never once said "[insert npc name] is casting fireball. How do you respond?", nor has a single DM I've ever played with. So I gotta at this point ask if we're even talking about Dungeons and Dragons or do you have some different game in mind?
"How do you respond?" Does he then stop and ask each player at the table by name? Every time any NPC does something he stops. Looks to the players one at at a time and asks "How do you respond?"
Please. You know that isn't how anyone plays the game. You know, I know, anyone reading this knows.
The order it'd go down is this:
DM: BS is casting Fireball
RW1: Oh I cast Counterspell!
DM: Ok, your counterspell gets subtly counterspelled RW1.
RW2: Oh, I'm counterspelling too.
DM: Hmm, okay, he's still in the process of casting his fireball at this point, okay, you counterspell his fireball RW2.
That's it. That's in play and also RAW.
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.
How is that confusing? You're taking the reaction while staring at a creature, who is within 60ft, and who is casting a spell. That's defacto the criteria. What part of the spell trigger criteria is absent? Be specific.
"but not instantaneously, since that's impossible"
So really you're just arguing against the Instantaneous effect of the spell? I'm sorry but it is an Instantaneous spell. Would something happening instantaneously be impossible IRL? Sure. But this is magic. And make believe. It is all fictional and the laws of physics need not apply. The rules for the spell are that it is Instantaneous. It is.
If you wanna make it a non-instantaneous effect in your games you can and should homebrew it to be as such. But word of warning, it'll have some super weird side effects if you do.
There is no reason to come to that conclusion. A trigger is eligible so long as it is ongoing. Say you make the trigger condition for a Held Attack Action with your bow as "I hold My attack to shoot as one of the goblins runs forward across the field" You could choose to take that reaction at any point that they're running across the field. So long as the trigger condition remains = true your reaction is a valid one.
Your opinion isn't supported by the rules of 5e. You're welcome to have it. But you should alert the players at your tables that you plan to deviate from official 5e rules on the topic of reaction timing. It is best to be upfront with them about these sorts of changes to basic gameplay.
To be clear, the spellcasting section gives all the guidance we need on reaction cast spells "If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so."
It says that the spell itself tells us when it can be cast. So what does counterspell say? We've covered it already but those at the back of the class:
All of these are true for RW2. So the reaction is eligible in response to this trigger.
You're approaching all of these arguments from gut instincts and not from what the rules tell you. I've stressed this before but 5e lets you homebrew stuff when there is this type of conflict but you really shouldn't confuse your gut instinct for the rules of the game. If you read the relevant rules they will tell you that reactions are instant responses, and that counterspell is an instantaneous spell. They'll also tell you that counterspell interrupts a spell in the process of being cast and so we have a very concrete timeline established by the rules here, even if your gut disagrees with that timeline we'll need to defer to the rules when discussing how this works officially. The subtle counterspell interrupts the RW1 counterspell mid-cast, which itself was interrupting the fireball midcast. Those are instantaneously resolved which puts exactly where we left off, fireball in the process of being cast: thus an eligible trigger for RW2 to counterspell.
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.
Nope. The DM is under absolutely no requirement to let you respond to how someone else responded to the same event.
To me if multiple creature cast counterspell in reaction to the same spell cast, they will be handled simultaneously in parrallel giving more chance to interrupt the spellcasting. No caster can wait for others to cast spells and see if they interrupt a spellcasting or not before attempting themselves too unless the spell cast has a casting time longer than an action, bonus action or reaction.
What?? I am absolutely NOT, nor have I ever argued such a thing. But I believe you are smart enough to already know that so now you are just arguing in bad faith. The duration of the spell is instantaneous -- it says it right there in the spell description.
However, the casting time of the spell is NOT instantaneous, it is 1 Reaction. It also says that right there in the spell description.
A trigger cannot be ongoing. It is a snapshot in time of an event that causes some consequence. My first hit on a plain english search for the definition is: "cause (an event or situation) to happen or exist". There is nothing in common usage or within the rules of the game that support the concept of an ongoing trigger. If you come up with something for your Ready action that is intentionally vague, the DM should ask you to clarify: "So, as soon as a goblin runs forward then?"
No. It does not say that. The reaction can occur "when you see" a creature. It's NOT a creature that "we can see".
Consider a situation where you arrive at home and expect the house to be empty and your thoughts are elsewhere. You turn the corner into the kitchen where your friend is standing there waiting for you. When you see your friend, you jump back and scream. Then you say, "Haha, I didn't expect to see you there, you startled me." In this situation, seeing your friend was the trigger and your reaction was to jump back and scream. Now you are looking at him and having a conversation. You can still see him, but this cannot trigger you to jump back and scream -- the trigger has passed, even though you can still see him.
Well, this has already been debunked so there's not much more to say on the matter. Yes, spells with an instantaneous duration are resolved instantaneously. But they do have a casting time. Unless the casting time is also instantaneous then some time must have passed by definition. It is impossible to actually do anything if time is frozen.
There's actually a 9th level spell which takes advantage of that fact. It's called Time Stop. "You briefly stop the flow of time for everyone but yourself. No time passes for other creatures, while you take 1d4 + 1 turns in a row, during which you can use actions and move as normal." Are you proposing that while I take my actions during these 1d4 + 1 turns that you can take Reactions because they involve instant responses that are resolved instantaneously? Even though time is frozen for you? Good luck with that.
Yeah DMs are free to deviate feom RAW whenever they want. Totally agree.
This was already covered. An intant [reaction] instantaneous [counterspell duration] that happen in the process of the spell cast [counterspell description] leaves you at exactly this state: spell in the process of being cast.
Simple as. There is no way around that. The timing is black and white in the rules.
You're going to need to back that up with rules. I see that you're claiming triggers cannot be ongoing but there is no reason to believe that is true based on the text of the rulebooks. Unless there is some passage you know of specifically?
... what? Seeing the creature is absolutely required.
If that is the trigger, the reaction is valid at any point that you can see him. I believe the trigger condition you want is "When you see your friend while not expecting to see him, you jump back and scream."
This trigger ends with the result you're looking for. But just "When you see your friend, you jump back and scream." results in entirely too much screaming.
It was in no way debunked. Because they're factually true, and directly from the text of the rulebook.
The casting time for counterspell is a reaction, which is instant.
An instant instantaneous effect.
Fun fact about reactions: Some even time travel! Yep that's right. Take your run of the mill Opportunity Attack. The trigger is a creature leaving you reach. But the reaction attack happens before the creature leaves your reach. Isn't that wild?
Reaction timing is handled by instructions provided. Even if they bend or even break your gut instinct for the timeline. That is by design.
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.
It's not deviating from RAW. "When you see X" is an instantaneous effect. If you walk around a corner and see someone casting a spell, you can cast counterspell. If you decide to wait around (say, they're casting a ritual) you can't -- unless you first cover your eyes or otherwise blind yourself, then become able to see it again, at which point you have another opportunity.
That's both silly to visualize, but also not true.
While the trigger conditions are met, you can cast the spell.
For the same reason if you're falling some massive distance you needn't use feather fall immediately, you can wait until you're approaching the ground. So long as the trigger requirements are met at the time you wanna use your reaction, you're golden.
Per the rulebook, anyway.
It feels like bits and pieces of the readied action are getting mistakenly applied to all reactions. Is that what's going on here?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The main support in the rulebook for a trigger being a snapshot event is that you instantly respond to them. You don't delay and then respond, that's not allowed. You must respond instantly. The rulebooks do not tend to elaborate once they've said something. It would be helpful if they did, but they don't. Getting it right requires a bit of reading comprehension at times.
Silly doesn't mean false. RAW reactions are a mess.
Trigger conditions must be reacted to when the trigger occurs. This does in fact prevent HALO jumping with feather fall.
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?
Every time someone mentions that all of this happens while time is basically frozen, I keep meaning to cite this rule but I keep forgetting. The rule comes from PHB, Chapter 10:
So, when you react you instantly respond -- but the execution of that response takes some time by rule. Note that "a fraction of a second" is NOT instantaneous, by definition. It is some amount of time greater than 0 but less than 1 second.
This leads me to once again bring up the possibility of overlap that was dismissed without adequate thought. Suppose the fireball is upcast and therefore this particular fireball is cast relatively quickly. For example, maybe it is cast in 0.5 seconds (who knows? It takes "1 action" to cast it, which is a somewhat undefined amount of time). Ok, well suppose the casting time for Counterspell for this particular wizard is typically 0.2 seconds. He attempts to counterspell the upcast fireball and has to make a die roll. Well, maybe the wizard isn't having a great day today and his reaction time is a little slow. Maybe this time is took him 0.6 seconds to cast Counterspell and this is the "reason" why the die roll failed -- he was simply too slow. In such a case, if another Wizard was waiting for that Counterspell to fail then he is out of luck -- the fireball was already cast. In another scenario maybe the sorcerer began casting Fireball but his somatic motions were obscured from view for the first 0.4 seconds -- but then the Wizard sees the rest of the somatic along with the verbal and reacts. Well, unfortunately now that Fireball will be cast 0.1 second later and so his normal reaction time of 0.2 seconds just isn't good enough this time, and again it's the "reason" why the die roll failed. Or maybe it wasn't. There won't always be overlap when Counterspell fails, but sometimes there will be.
And yet, the snapshot trigger was missed anyway since he didn't instantly respond to it, so he's out of luck either way.
You're both saying roughly the same thing but the rulebooks don't say this. You react instantly to the trigger *when* you choose to use your reaction. But 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 falls" is the entirety of the fall. "When a creature casts a spell" is the entirety of the spellcasting process. If those are your triggers then your reaction is valid while those statements=true.
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.