Most DMs aren't going to say, "Ok, the wizard's casting a spell..."
They (I) do at our table. It only takes a couple of interactions with the players for a DM to alter the wording flow for all subsequent encounters.
At our table it happened for this very reason. Changing our process eliminated TONS of retcon requirements. This also has affected how we play out opening doors and chests and other things that might have variable consequences depending on the circumstances and conditions. The players know that just because I mention the door or chest or desk drawer is closed doesn't mean it is trapped. And it doesn't mean it isn't. If they open something before checking it for traps and it was trapped, then boom! I keep passive insight, perception, and investigation for each PC displayed at all times, so that I can give them clues that something is amiss even when the player doesn't ask. But counterspell uses a reaction to do it. And knowing whether you should is also a reaction.
In one game, a non-caster and a caster work together -- the non-caster does the identification (and shouts counter or pass, and the caster counters. The rule interaction has created a party synergy.
For one, how long does that knowledge last? For instance, if Enemy Wizard casts Fireball, the PC Sorcerer identifies the spell with their reaction, and then next round Enemy Wizard begins to cast it again, can the PC Sorcerer Counterspell now? Logically, I would think she could -- she already has seen what the motions look like and what the words sound like to cast Fireball, so she should have that knowledge.
But what about if Enemy Sorcerer attempts to cast Fireball in an encounter tomorrow? Or next week? ... Or what if the original Enemy Wizard gets away, will PC Sorcerer remember what Fireball looked like a week from now?
What if the enemy spellcaster is attempting to cast a spell that PC Sorcerer knows? Stands to reason that a PC Sorcerer could immediately identify Fireball for free if they themselves use it on a daily basis.
It is not "does the PC Sorcerer know what a fireball looks like?" It is 'Can the PC Sorcerer correctly identify the spell right now, in the middle of combat, with all the distraction of other stuff going on, fast enough to be able to counterspell or let someone else know."
Remember that Ability Checks are not "Can I do this thing?", it is "Can I do this attempt to do this thing?"
For one, how long does that knowledge last? For instance, if Enemy Wizard casts Fireball, the PC Sorcerer identifies the spell with their reaction, and then next round Enemy Wizard begins to cast it again, can the PC Sorcerer Counterspell now? Logically, I would think she could -- she already has seen what the motions look like and what the words sound like to cast Fireball, so she should have that knowledge.
But what about if Enemy Sorcerer attempts to cast Fireball in an encounter tomorrow? Or next week? ... Or what if the original Enemy Wizard gets away, will PC Sorcerer remember what Fireball looked like a week from now?
What if the enemy spellcaster is attempting to cast a spell that PC Sorcerer knows? Stands to reason that a PC Sorcerer could immediately identify Fireball for free if they themselves use it on a daily basis.
It is not "does the PC Sorcerer know what a fireball looks like?" It is 'Can the PC Sorcerer correctly identify the spell right now, in the middle of combat, with all the distraction of other stuff going on, fast enough to be able to counterspell or let someone else know."
Remember that Ability Checks are not "Can I do this thing?", it is "Can I do this attempt to do this thing?"
I get that, but I suppose I just see it more akin to a melee character attacking with a greatsword or a halberd. Sure, there are distractions and fog of war and all that, but you still aren't going to mistake the two. And having not seen a halberd before, you're going to be less likely to know what it can do (yes, I know mechanically it makes no difference, but still, you'll immediately be able to see "I'm getting attacked by a greatsword, I can put up my shield!" without having to spend a reaction identify the method of attack).
I get that, but I suppose I just see it more akin to a melee character attacking with a greatsword or a halberd. Sure, there are distractions and fog of war and all that, but you still aren't going to mistake the two. And having not seen a halberd before, you're going to be less likely to know what it can do (yes, I know mechanically it makes no difference, but still, you'll immediately be able to see "I'm getting attacked by a greatsword, I can put up my shield!" without having to spend a reaction identify the method of attack).
I see it as closer to picking a lock or disabling a trap. Our thief has seen locks before. They've even seen locks created by this specific locksmith before. They've even seen this specific lock, because it was the same lock type used on the tavern cellar door in the previous town!
But I'd still ask for a roll. Because that's how D&D works. As Greenstone _Walker points out, the skill check isn't to see if you can do the thing. We already know the thief can pick the lock - that's why there's a skill check in the first place. But rather, it's to see if - in that moment, with whatever else is going on - whether they're successful in doing what they're doing this time.
I was so juiced when I got to add Counterspell to my (Bard) list. I got to use it once. Now the DM uses magic items to cast frequently, so I can't counterspell the item. The last one was when he cast fireball at level 3. Then my bard cast some sort of concentration spell. The next round his guy cast fireball again using six charges from the wand, making it an eighth level spell, and we still couldn't counter it. I made my save, along with most of the party, which took me down to single digits of HP, but I lost my concentration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I was so juiced when I got to add Counterspell to my (Bard) list. I got to use it once. Now the DM uses magic items to cast frequently, so I can't counterspell the item. The last one was when he cast fireball at level 3. Then my bard cast some sort of concentration spell. The next round his guy cast fireball again using six charges from the wand, making it an eighth level spell, and we still couldn't counter it. I made my save, along with most of the party, which took me down to single digits of HP, but I lost my concentration.
Do you mean you couldn't counterspell it because it was too high level, or because it was from a wand? Cause I'm pretty sure it still counts as a spell, it uses all the same wordings and rules except it doesn't take up a spell slot of the user (who also needs attunement).
As for the whole situation, it seems like your DM still needs more experience in how to be a good DM, sorry to hear that. Hope you're still having fun.
Another interesting way to get around, in a way, the ability for someone to counterspell your spells would be to use the "ready" action to cast the spell on a certain trigger, since you pre-cast the spell and hold it until something happens (though you'd lose the slot if it didn't happen).
Like;
"I use ready action to cast finger of death on the first creature coming around the corner" It would only be able to be counterspelled as you're using the ready action.
Another interesting way to get around, in a way, the ability for someone to counterspell your spells would be to use the "ready" action to cast the spell on a certain trigger, since you pre-cast the spell and hold it until something happens (though you'd lose the slot if it didn't happen).
This will work as long as the caster who can counterspell doesn't see you readying the spell. In the scenario you described, it will definitely work. But readying "an action to cast finger of death on the first creature to move within 10 feet of me" would still be able to be counterspelled if the caster is already in the room and can see you ready the action in the first place.
XGTE on page 85 has an entire section about identifying a spell., using a Reaction or Action. In the case of Counterspell, given it is a Reaction as well, the player can either try to Identify the spell, OR Counterspell, NOT both.
Now, if another member of the party manages to Identify the spell (not a trivial act) using their Reaction, can that player communicate that knowledge to the caster who wants to use Counterspell? That one is open for discussion. There is no RAW on whether a Reaction allows enough time for said communication to take place. I believe it is meta-gaming in the worst way, and won't allow that kind of communication at my table. But others will allow that. In my opinion, they are way too lenient with the players, but that is not my table.
Another interesting way to get around, in a way, the ability for someone to counterspell your spells would be to use the "ready" action to cast the spell on a certain trigger, since you pre-cast the spell and hold it until something happens (though you'd lose the slot if it didn't happen).
This will work as long as the caster who can counterspell doesn't see you readying the spell. In the scenario you described, it will definitely work. But readying "an action to cast finger of death on the first creature to move within 10 feet of me" would still be able to be counterspelled if the caster is already in the room and can see you ready the action in the first place.
Yeah exactly. It's pretty much up to the DM's good will anyways since they could easily avoid the trigger if they wanted to, but with a DM who doesn't play monsters with knowledge they shouldn't have it could work well. On the other hand it could also make for hillariously horrible fails, where you just hit your friend or perhaps the innocent floor-cleaning dude who just decided to run around the corner in terror of the thing you thought was coming first.
I think I'll make another thread (unless there is one already) of interesting uses of the ready spell action, like you could swap places with the fighter when someone is about to hit you or similar.
XGTE on page 85 has an entire section about identifying a spell., using a Reaction or Action. In the case of Counterspell, given it is a Reaction as well, the player can either try to Identify the spell, OR Counterspell, NOT both.
Now, if another member of the party manages to Identify the spell (not a trivial act) using their Reaction, can that player communicate that knowledge to the caster who wants to use Counterspell? That one is open for discussion. There is no RAW on whether a Reaction allows enough time for said communication to take place. I believe it is meta-gaming in the worst way, and won't allow that kind of communication at my table. But others will allow that. In my opinion, they are way too lenient with the players, but that is not my table.
Yeah, that's what I realized it did, but it's not how I've percieved it being used which is why I made the topic.
On that note, it does make the counterspell much worse and sure it's a great spell... But it's not like you've got unlimited spellslots. If you do many fights a day, is it really that bad to let the counterspeller actually use it in a good way? Like, ok, you counterspell the 8th level spell. Gratz. The other spellcaster has so many other spellslots it doesn't really matter in the long run. Especially if you want that automatic counter where you have to raise the level of the spell. I don't see how it's overpowered in any way. Wasting the spellslot on a lower level spell would be like the paladin having 6 goblins in front of him all looking the same, one of them is a boss with 50hp the others all have 4 hp, he hits one and needs to decide if he should smite or not. Complete waste on a 4hp goblin but might be great on the boss. Except in the case with a spellcaster there would be many many more spells to be cast.
Now, like I said I know how it works that's why I made the original post but I'm still not convinced it's a good way to play it. I do think there could be cool moments in certain groups where they could help out each other with reactions to identify. And at the very least, if the arcana roll doesn't allow for someone to also warn people, it would be pretty useless except for extremely rare moments with things like charm person because most things can be deduced simply after the spell is cast. No point identifying a fireball being cast when it hits you right after and you can't do anything about it or warn anyone.
So, I have a hard time deciding what I think is the good way to play it. Of course anyone else can play it like they want. I do like the idea of making arcana checks to identify the spell and I really do agree that it makes some kind of sense that you can't both identify the spell being cast (you'd have to observe for a short moment, think about what they are doing, then figure out oh shit it's a fireball) and then unravel it. On the other hand if you can't spend that time yourself, then counterspell, why would it really make any sense that someone else should be able to spend that time, scream fireball and then you counterspell it. Makes no "sense" timewise that either option would be faster or slower.
At the same time, without any idea what is being cast it would just be horrible to have someone upcast counterspell to disable something... Here I could maybe think it would make sense that while you cast it at 3rd level minimum normally, it would make sense that you could get some kinda idea of how high level it is.. Thematically it would be like, while you're starting to unravel the spell you can sense if it's stronger, essentially allowing you to change what spellslot you're using since it takes more time and power to unravel... Perhaps counterspell could even be used with lower level slots (but you'd still need access to 3rd level spells since you need that kind of mastery over spellcasting to be able to understand how to unravel a spell). I'm not sure. I know what the real rules are RAW. And I kinda agree. But I also feel like it seriously makes the spell worse and since the players are more limited on spellslots than monsters.. technically you could face 2000000000 other spellcasters in a day, you will always be more limited than opponents since you will never know what you're facing. The monsters won't have the trouble of "oh, should I use all my spells against this group of adventurers... What if I face another group today". Though that could be kinda fun, facing an enemy who already killed a party when the players arrive :)
Anyways the point for me is that I don't like rules that make limited resources weaker unless they are overpowered. And since counterspell is very limited, I don't like the idea of making it worse. Imagine counterspelling a cantrip. That would be horrible. Basically like the paladin wasting a level 3 (spell slot) smite on a 4hp goblin. Actually the paladin would get more out of it because it's so overkill it would be funny.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They (I) do at our table. It only takes a couple of interactions with the players for a DM to alter the wording flow for all subsequent encounters.
At our table it happened for this very reason. Changing our process eliminated TONS of retcon requirements. This also has affected how we play out opening doors and chests and other things that might have variable consequences depending on the circumstances and conditions. The players know that just because I mention the door or chest or desk drawer is closed doesn't mean it is trapped. And it doesn't mean it isn't. If they open something before checking it for traps and it was trapped, then boom! I keep passive insight, perception, and investigation for each PC displayed at all times, so that I can give them clues that something is amiss even when the player doesn't ask. But counterspell uses a reaction to do it. And knowing whether you should is also a reaction.
In one game, a non-caster and a caster work together -- the non-caster does the identification (and shouts counter or pass, and the caster counters. The rule interaction has created a party synergy.
It is not "does the PC Sorcerer know what a fireball looks like?" It is 'Can the PC Sorcerer correctly identify the spell right now, in the middle of combat, with all the distraction of other stuff going on, fast enough to be able to counterspell or let someone else know."
Remember that Ability Checks are not "Can I do this thing?", it is "Can I do this attempt to do this thing?"
I get that, but I suppose I just see it more akin to a melee character attacking with a greatsword or a halberd. Sure, there are distractions and fog of war and all that, but you still aren't going to mistake the two. And having not seen a halberd before, you're going to be less likely to know what it can do (yes, I know mechanically it makes no difference, but still, you'll immediately be able to see "I'm getting attacked by a greatsword, I can put up my shield!" without having to spend a reaction identify the method of attack).
I see it as closer to picking a lock or disabling a trap. Our thief has seen locks before. They've even seen locks created by this specific locksmith before. They've even seen this specific lock, because it was the same lock type used on the tavern cellar door in the previous town!
But I'd still ask for a roll. Because that's how D&D works. As Greenstone _Walker points out, the skill check isn't to see if you can do the thing. We already know the thief can pick the lock - that's why there's a skill check in the first place. But rather, it's to see if - in that moment, with whatever else is going on - whether they're successful in doing what they're doing this time.
I was so juiced when I got to add Counterspell to my (Bard) list. I got to use it once. Now the DM uses magic items to cast frequently, so I can't counterspell the item. The last one was when he cast fireball at level 3. Then my bard cast some sort of concentration spell. The next round his guy cast fireball again using six charges from the wand, making it an eighth level spell, and we still couldn't counter it. I made my save, along with most of the party, which took me down to single digits of HP, but I lost my concentration.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Do you mean you couldn't counterspell it because it was too high level, or because it was from a wand? Cause I'm pretty sure it still counts as a spell, it uses all the same wordings and rules except it doesn't take up a spell slot of the user (who also needs attunement).
As for the whole situation, it seems like your DM still needs more experience in how to be a good DM, sorry to hear that. Hope you're still having fun.
Another interesting way to get around, in a way, the ability for someone to counterspell your spells would be to use the "ready" action to cast the spell on a certain trigger, since you pre-cast the spell and hold it until something happens (though you'd lose the slot if it didn't happen).
Like;
"I use ready action to cast finger of death on the first creature coming around the corner" It would only be able to be counterspelled as you're using the ready action.
Sure you can:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/21/does-the-counterspell-work-against-wands/
This will work as long as the caster who can counterspell doesn't see you readying the spell. In the scenario you described, it will definitely work. But readying "an action to cast finger of death on the first creature to move within 10 feet of me" would still be able to be counterspelled if the caster is already in the room and can see you ready the action in the first place.
Our DM ruled we couldn't counterspell an effect from an item, only the casting of spells.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
A wand of fireballs says "you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast the fireball spell (save DC 15) from it".
Therefore, the person wielding the wand is casting a spell.
This is not that hard folks.
XGTE on page 85 has an entire section about identifying a spell., using a Reaction or Action. In the case of Counterspell, given it is a Reaction as well, the player can either try to Identify the spell, OR Counterspell, NOT both.
Now, if another member of the party manages to Identify the spell (not a trivial act) using their Reaction, can that player communicate that knowledge to the caster who wants to use Counterspell? That one is open for discussion. There is no RAW on whether a Reaction allows enough time for said communication to take place. I believe it is meta-gaming in the worst way, and won't allow that kind of communication at my table. But others will allow that. In my opinion, they are way too lenient with the players, but that is not my table.
Yeah exactly. It's pretty much up to the DM's good will anyways since they could easily avoid the trigger if they wanted to, but with a DM who doesn't play monsters with knowledge they shouldn't have it could work well. On the other hand it could also make for hillariously horrible fails, where you just hit your friend or perhaps the innocent floor-cleaning dude who just decided to run around the corner in terror of the thing you thought was coming first.
I think I'll make another thread (unless there is one already) of interesting uses of the ready spell action, like you could swap places with the fighter when someone is about to hit you or similar.
Yeah, that's what I realized it did, but it's not how I've percieved it being used which is why I made the topic.
On that note, it does make the counterspell much worse and sure it's a great spell... But it's not like you've got unlimited spellslots. If you do many fights a day, is it really that bad to let the counterspeller actually use it in a good way? Like, ok, you counterspell the 8th level spell. Gratz. The other spellcaster has so many other spellslots it doesn't really matter in the long run.
Especially if you want that automatic counter where you have to raise the level of the spell. I don't see how it's overpowered in any way.
Wasting the spellslot on a lower level spell would be like the paladin having 6 goblins in front of him all looking the same, one of them is a boss with 50hp the others all have 4 hp, he hits one and needs to decide if he should smite or not. Complete waste on a 4hp goblin but might be great on the boss. Except in the case with a spellcaster there would be many many more spells to be cast.
Now, like I said I know how it works that's why I made the original post but I'm still not convinced it's a good way to play it. I do think there could be cool moments in certain groups where they could help out each other with reactions to identify. And at the very least, if the arcana roll doesn't allow for someone to also warn people, it would be pretty useless except for extremely rare moments with things like charm person because most things can be deduced simply after the spell is cast. No point identifying a fireball being cast when it hits you right after and you can't do anything about it or warn anyone.
So, I have a hard time deciding what I think is the good way to play it. Of course anyone else can play it like they want. I do like the idea of making arcana checks to identify the spell and I really do agree that it makes some kind of sense that you can't both identify the spell being cast (you'd have to observe for a short moment, think about what they are doing, then figure out oh shit it's a fireball) and then unravel it. On the other hand if you can't spend that time yourself, then counterspell, why would it really make any sense that someone else should be able to spend that time, scream fireball and then you counterspell it. Makes no "sense" timewise that either option would be faster or slower.
At the same time, without any idea what is being cast it would just be horrible to have someone upcast counterspell to disable something... Here I could maybe think it would make sense that while you cast it at 3rd level minimum normally, it would make sense that you could get some kinda idea of how high level it is.. Thematically it would be like, while you're starting to unravel the spell you can sense if it's stronger, essentially allowing you to change what spellslot you're using since it takes more time and power to unravel... Perhaps counterspell could even be used with lower level slots (but you'd still need access to 3rd level spells since you need that kind of mastery over spellcasting to be able to understand how to unravel a spell).
I'm not sure. I know what the real rules are RAW. And I kinda agree. But I also feel like it seriously makes the spell worse and since the players are more limited on spellslots than monsters.. technically you could face 2000000000 other spellcasters in a day, you will always be more limited than opponents since you will never know what you're facing. The monsters won't have the trouble of "oh, should I use all my spells against this group of adventurers... What if I face another group today". Though that could be kinda fun, facing an enemy who already killed a party when the players arrive :)
Anyways the point for me is that I don't like rules that make limited resources weaker unless they are overpowered. And since counterspell is very limited, I don't like the idea of making it worse. Imagine counterspelling a cantrip. That would be horrible. Basically like the paladin wasting a level 3 (spell slot) smite on a 4hp goblin. Actually the paladin would get more out of it because it's so overkill it would be funny.