Just to summarize this thread, then, for those who are loathe to read through the entire 5 pages: I think everyone can agree that RAW permits a spellcaster who is casting a spell (such as Fireball requiring 1 action, for example), to use the spellcaster's reaction to cast counterspell against a counterspell cast by another spellcaster against the Fireball spell, thereby nullifying the first counterspell and thereby allowing the Fireball spell to take effect. There also seems to be agreement that a DM can either allow the second counterspell to go into effect automatically, or optionally, the DM can require an ability check under established RAW latitude with respect to ability checks in a given situation. RAW would not allow a DM to simply deny the ability of the second counterspell to take effect. Personally, I would require a DEX (Arcana) ability check for the second counterspell because while you're in the middle of casting a Fireball spell it would be "hard" to see another spellcaster's counterspell and also react in time to cast a counterspell to the counterspell, when the initial counterspell takes "a fraction of a second" to cast, you're still casting Fireball, and you must have practiced (Arcana) doing such a tricky move and have some dexterity and fast reaction ability to pull it off. The RAW by no means requires such an ability check, but it is entirely within a DM's discretion to require it and it would be RAW to do so.
Just to summarize a bit more succinctly.
RAW and RAI, a character is permitted to use their reaction to counterspell any other spell (including an opposing counterspell) when they are in the middle of casting another spell UNLESS that other spell requires a bonus action to cast or the character previously cast a bonus action spell earlier on their turn. Casting a spell as a bonus action will prevent any use of counterspell for the rest of their turn.
As for ability checks.
"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."
RAW, counterspell does not have a chance of failure other than the mechanics described in the spell itself. The requirements for counterspell are having a reaction available, having an appropriate level spell slot, having the spell prepared and seeing a creature within 60' casting a spell (any further requirements are DM dependent not RAW). A DM can choose to implement a skill check when counterspell is being cast but that is strictly homebrew.
-------------------------------------
P.S. RAW is rules as written, the entire game is built on the premise of DM discretion and rulings. If every change a DM makes to the rules due to the fact that they are free to run things however they wish in their game is considered RAW because the rules give the DM the lattitude to do what they like then there is no point in discussing "RAW". In this case, the rules do not require a skill check for the stated actions involving casting counterspell while casting another spell. DMs can choose to require such a skill check but it is by no means RAW just because a DM can decide to call for skill checks for whatever they like.
A DM decides to call for an athletics check every 10' for characters walking normally. Is that RAW just because a DM can use skill checks for whatever they like? I'd say no personally. A DM can use skill checks whenever they want but the guidance is for things that have a chance of failure - in the rules, counterspell doesn't have any chance of failure in the stated situation. A DM can decide to implement such a chance of failure but doing so is not RAW just because a DM is free to require skill checks.
Well I fundamentally disagree with your statement that a counterspell to a counterspell has no chance of failure (while agreeing that RAW allows it clearly).
Counterspell requires this casting time: "1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
The spell could have stated "1 reaction" and end it there. But it didn't. It says the reaction is one you take "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell" and that means you must see the creature in the process of casting a spell, and when the spell you're trying to react to is a counterspell which takes a fraction of a second to react to in turn, this is something that could fail. You could fail to "see a creature" casting the spell, and you could fail to see the casting before the casting is done, and further you could fail to react in time before the creature is no longer casting the spell (i.e., the spell is completed already). Are you absolutely sure there is no chance of failure in all this? Please keep an open mind!
You can't equate this with requiring an ability check every 10 feet for walking which is a normal activity. Explain to me how a spellcaster in the middle of casting a Fireball spell can "automatically" and "without fail" see the opposing spellcaster casting a counterspell which takes a "fraction of a second" and react in time to cast their own counterspell before the opposing spellcaster is done casting it.
There is no way that this is automatic, or without any chance of failure. That's my point, and in a case of a spellcaster who is casting a spell, and sees the momentary flicker of a counterspell casting, I will require some kind of ability check for the counter to counterspell. Also, you can't say this is "homebrew" when the spell definition itself lends itself to some possibility of failure (there are contingencies of seeing the casting and seeing it while it is still being cast, which requires perception and reaction beyond the mere expending of 1 reaction).
You're free to make it automatic. I wouldn't, and it would be RAW for me to require an ability check. If you think it is easy for a spellcaster to counterspell a counterspell while casting Fireball, then you could make it a DC5 or something, with at least some possibility of failure when rolling a 1. I would give a spellcaster the ability to add their proficiency bonus for Arcana to whatever roll was required. One could even fashion a "contest" between the two spellcasters a la Harry Potter. Make it interesting. Automatic success is boring anyway. (yes I know counterspell is automatic if the spell level is 3 or below, but that's separate from seeing the spell being cast in time).
So you have to see the spell caster casting a spell in order to trigger the reaction, but it’s not automatic because you may not see them casting the spell that is triggering your reaction? Is this a Princess Bride Miracle Max, he’s not dead, he’s almost mostly dead kind if thing?
edit: so it takes an ability check to see if you saw the spell that you needed to see to trigger the reaction, but if you didn’t see it (because of a bad roll) did you actually get the trigger to cast the spell to trigger the ability check in the first place?
For it to be RAW it needs to say in the description of the spell that an ability check is required. A DM can ask for an ability check for anything but that doesn’t make a check for a spell that does not require one to be RAW.
you could fail to see the casting before the casting is done, and further you could fail to react in time before the creature is no longer casting the spell (i.e., the spell is completed already). Are you absolutely sure there is no chance of failure in all this? Please keep an open mind!
While it's a fair point to make, I think in RAW terms there's no requirement to test; if this combat is taking place in a brightly lit area and you can see the other caster(s) then that's enough to satisfy the requirements of the spell; you can see the target, and you have your reaction available to use.
I don't think it's a good idea to get into the speed of a reaction, as that's just opening a can of worms as you could start questioning any number of other reactions on the same basis, and it'll just slow the game down (plus make reactions unreliable).
Since the only requirement on the spell itself is that you can see the caster, then vision should be the only consideration; if your view clear, you can do it, if it's fully obstructed you can't, and if it's anything in between it's reasonable for the DM to ask for a check to confirm. For example, if the target is behind partial cover (you can see them, but may not be able to see that they are casting a spell), or they're in dim light while you don't have darkvision, lightly obscured and so-on.
I wouldn't say this is specific to counterspell though, it's more just a general rule for anything that requires line of sight; if you can only partially or potentially see a target, then a check is reasonable, otherwise it should be clear if the trigger is met.
Ok Haravikk, I am somewhat persuaded by your reasoning and will look at Perception check in cases of obscured visuals. Lesson to players: when you see a spell being cast and cast Counterspell to halt it, do the somatic gesture behind your back.
Ok Haravikk, I am somewhat persuaded by your reasoning and will look at Perception check in cases of obscured visuals. Lesson to players: when you see a spell being cast and cast Counterspell to halt it, do the somatic gesture behind your back.
This suggestion gets into a whole different level of DM adjudication and rules bending :)
What if the caster is standing behind a wall where their hands aren't visible - can they be seen casting any spell that uses S,M components?
What exactly does it mean "to see a spell being cast"?
Can the caster stand in a noisy room 30' away from the target and cast any V,S,M spell with their hands behind their back and the verbal component can't be heard?
What about a bard performing on a stage and casting a spell as part of their performance? The musical instrument is their focus, the fingers flying on the strings do the somatic components as some sort of flourish and the verbal component is worked into the song - can it be counterspelled?
Does every caster get access to the subtle spell metamagic just by roleplaying a bit and hiding the components?
When I'm running a game, I just say that spellcasting is noticed as long as you can see the target unless subtle or a similar ability is used. This avoids a lot of issues in my games without detracting from the fun - the other players often don't find it much fun allowing the casters to become even more powerful by figuring out ways to cast their spells without being noticed.
The only exception I would tend to allow would be a detailed, planned ambush where the caster is at least 60' away perhaps looking through a peephole AND hidden to start with so that their presence is unknown and the components might not be immediately obvious as soon as they start to cast.
Ok Haravikk, I am somewhat persuaded by your reasoning and will look at Perception check in cases of obscured visuals. Lesson to players: when you see a spell being cast and cast Counterspell to halt it, do the somatic gesture behind your back.
This suggestion gets into a whole different level of DM adjudication and rules bending :)
What if the caster is standing behind a wall where their hands aren't visible - can they be seen casting any spell that uses S,M components?
What exactly does it mean "to see a spell being cast"?
Can the caster stand in a noisy room 30' away from the target and cast any V,S,M spell with their hands behind their back and the verbal component can't be heard?
What about a bard performing on a stage and casting a spell as part of their performance? The musical instrument is their focus, the fingers flying on the strings do the somatic components as some sort of flourish and the verbal component is worked into the song - can it be counterspelled?
Does every caster get access to the subtle spell metamagic just by roleplaying a bit and hiding the components?
When I'm running a game, I just say that spellcasting is noticed as long as you can see the target unless subtle or a similar ability is used. This avoids a lot of issues in my games without detracting from the fun - the other players often don't find it much fun allowing the casters to become even more powerful by figuring out ways to cast their spells without being noticed.
The only exception I would tend to allow would be a detailed, planned ambush where the caster is at least 60' away perhaps looking through a peephole AND hidden to start with so that their presence is unknown and the components might not be immediately obvious as soon as they start to cast.
Easy ruling that'll get you through every situation: verbal components are declared confidently or shouted, somatic components are dramatic and exaggerated. Imagine it's a stage play. RAW? No. RAI? I don't know. Helpful? Certainly.
Ok Haravikk, I am somewhat persuaded by your reasoning and will look at Perception check in cases of obscured visuals. Lesson to players: when you see a spell being cast and cast Counterspell to halt it, do the somatic gesture behind your back.
If your DM wanted to allow that, i.e- a concerted effort to disguise your casting, then they could make it an opposed Sleight of Hand vs. Perception check to determine whether the (potential) counterspeller can see the spell being cast despite efforts to conceal it? Not sure I'd allow it as standard though; maybe outside of combat when the caster has more time to do the casting secretly rather than quickly? In other words, I'd probably assume that doing anything extra takes more time, or some kind of preparation.
But this, along with things like verbal components being drowned out by noise, are a big part of why we have a DM to adjudicate, as they can decide if enough is happening to hide the components from detection or not, or if it's uncertain enough that some kind of roll is required; e.g- Performance (maybe with advantage for instrument proficiency) vs. Perception to mask or drown out the sound, or Deception vs. Insight to weave it into conversation somehow, or whatever the player(s) want to do.
These are all things that go beyond the basics of how counterspelling normally works, but ultimately D&D's rules are a toolkit; the rules for skill checks basically encourage the DM to use them whenever the outcome of anything should be uncertain. That's not to say they should go overboard and demand loads of checks for every minute detail; they absolutely shouldn't, in fact if anything many DM's should ask for fewer checks, but every so often you get things that need a roll to decide them, or carry an element of risk/reward that makes it worth doing.
Because the best thing about D&D, or roleplaying games in general, is that it's not about using the prescribed actions in the most efficient way possible; the whole reason we have DM's running these things is because a player can ask to do literally anything they want. Whether they can succeed at what they want to do is a whole other matter though. 😉
In very specific circumstances I could see it being a thing you did (very loud ship at sea and heavy rain blocks clear vision) but having them do it every time just because it's pretty silly to me.
Bear in mind that raw, unaffiliated skill checks don't exist -- every check is an ability check. So you might feel like a maneuver involves Sleight of Hand, but ask yourself, does it test Dexterity? Is this something that relies on Dexterity?
I don't wanna answer it for you. Just keep it in mind.
Regarding whether or not you can "hide" the fact you're counterspelling or casting a spell by performing the somatic component behind your back, I would say that probably shouldn't work because of the Subtle Spell metamagic option. It specifically makes casting spells without material components completely undetectable (and therefore immune to being counterspelled - including counterspell itself.)
If a special feature gives an ability, it's probably safe to assume that isn't how the ability normally works.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well I fundamentally disagree with your statement that a counterspell to a counterspell has no chance of failure (while agreeing that RAW allows it clearly).
Counterspell requires this casting time: "1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
The spell could have stated "1 reaction" and end it there. But it didn't. It says the reaction is one you take "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell" and that means you must see the creature in the process of casting a spell, and when the spell you're trying to react to is a counterspell which takes a fraction of a second to react to in turn, this is something that could fail. You could fail to "see a creature" casting the spell, and you could fail to see the casting before the casting is done, and further you could fail to react in time before the creature is no longer casting the spell (i.e., the spell is completed already). Are you absolutely sure there is no chance of failure in all this? Please keep an open mind!
You can't equate this with requiring an ability check every 10 feet for walking which is a normal activity. Explain to me how a spellcaster in the middle of casting a Fireball spell can "automatically" and "without fail" see the opposing spellcaster casting a counterspell which takes a "fraction of a second" and react in time to cast their own counterspell before the opposing spellcaster is done casting it.
There is no way that this is automatic, or without any chance of failure. That's my point, and in a case of a spellcaster who is casting a spell, and sees the momentary flicker of a counterspell casting, I will require some kind of ability check for the counter to counterspell. Also, you can't say this is "homebrew" when the spell definition itself lends itself to some possibility of failure (there are contingencies of seeing the casting and seeing it while it is still being cast, which requires perception and reaction beyond the mere expending of 1 reaction).
You're free to make it automatic. I wouldn't, and it would be RAW for me to require an ability check. If you think it is easy for a spellcaster to counterspell a counterspell while casting Fireball, then you could make it a DC5 or something, with at least some possibility of failure when rolling a 1. I would give a spellcaster the ability to add their proficiency bonus for Arcana to whatever roll was required. One could even fashion a "contest" between the two spellcasters a la Harry Potter. Make it interesting. Automatic success is boring anyway. (yes I know counterspell is automatic if the spell level is 3 or below, but that's separate from seeing the spell being cast in time).
So you have to see the spell caster casting a spell in order to trigger the reaction, but it’s not automatic because you may not see them casting the spell that is triggering your reaction? Is this a Princess Bride Miracle Max, he’s not dead, he’s
almostmostly dead kind if thing?edit: so it takes an ability check to see if you saw the spell that you needed to see to trigger the reaction, but if you didn’t see it (because of a bad roll) did you actually get the trigger to cast the spell to trigger the ability check in the first place?
For it to be RAW it needs to say in the description of the spell that an ability check is required. A DM can ask for an ability check for anything but that doesn’t make a check for a spell that does not require one to be RAW.
While it's a fair point to make, I think in RAW terms there's no requirement to test; if this combat is taking place in a brightly lit area and you can see the other caster(s) then that's enough to satisfy the requirements of the spell; you can see the target, and you have your reaction available to use.
I don't think it's a good idea to get into the speed of a reaction, as that's just opening a can of worms as you could start questioning any number of other reactions on the same basis, and it'll just slow the game down (plus make reactions unreliable).
Since the only requirement on the spell itself is that you can see the caster, then vision should be the only consideration; if your view clear, you can do it, if it's fully obstructed you can't, and if it's anything in between it's reasonable for the DM to ask for a check to confirm. For example, if the target is behind partial cover (you can see them, but may not be able to see that they are casting a spell), or they're in dim light while you don't have darkvision, lightly obscured and so-on.
I wouldn't say this is specific to counterspell though, it's more just a general rule for anything that requires line of sight; if you can only partially or potentially see a target, then a check is reasonable, otherwise it should be clear if the trigger is met.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
No by RAW no chance of failure. All rules are met. You see the caster and you have a reaction to use to counter the spell so you can cast it.
Do you know what level the spell is? No.... So you have to guess what level to use or face the normal check the spell calls for.
This is more than enough to challenge the player.
Ok Haravikk, I am somewhat persuaded by your reasoning and will look at Perception check in cases of obscured visuals. Lesson to players: when you see a spell being cast and cast Counterspell to halt it, do the somatic gesture behind your back.
This suggestion gets into a whole different level of DM adjudication and rules bending :)
What if the caster is standing behind a wall where their hands aren't visible - can they be seen casting any spell that uses S,M components?
What exactly does it mean "to see a spell being cast"?
Can the caster stand in a noisy room 30' away from the target and cast any V,S,M spell with their hands behind their back and the verbal component can't be heard?
What about a bard performing on a stage and casting a spell as part of their performance? The musical instrument is their focus, the fingers flying on the strings do the somatic components as some sort of flourish and the verbal component is worked into the song - can it be counterspelled?
Does every caster get access to the subtle spell metamagic just by roleplaying a bit and hiding the components?
When I'm running a game, I just say that spellcasting is noticed as long as you can see the target unless subtle or a similar ability is used. This avoids a lot of issues in my games without detracting from the fun - the other players often don't find it much fun allowing the casters to become even more powerful by figuring out ways to cast their spells without being noticed.
The only exception I would tend to allow would be a detailed, planned ambush where the caster is at least 60' away perhaps looking through a peephole AND hidden to start with so that their presence is unknown and the components might not be immediately obvious as soon as they start to cast.
Easy ruling that'll get you through every situation: verbal components are declared confidently or shouted, somatic components are dramatic and exaggerated. Imagine it's a stage play. RAW? No. RAI? I don't know. Helpful? Certainly.
If your DM wanted to allow that, i.e- a concerted effort to disguise your casting, then they could make it an opposed Sleight of Hand vs. Perception check to determine whether the (potential) counterspeller can see the spell being cast despite efforts to conceal it? Not sure I'd allow it as standard though; maybe outside of combat when the caster has more time to do the casting secretly rather than quickly? In other words, I'd probably assume that doing anything extra takes more time, or some kind of preparation.
But this, along with things like verbal components being drowned out by noise, are a big part of why we have a DM to adjudicate, as they can decide if enough is happening to hide the components from detection or not, or if it's uncertain enough that some kind of roll is required; e.g- Performance (maybe with advantage for instrument proficiency) vs. Perception to mask or drown out the sound, or Deception vs. Insight to weave it into conversation somehow, or whatever the player(s) want to do.
These are all things that go beyond the basics of how counterspelling normally works, but ultimately D&D's rules are a toolkit; the rules for skill checks basically encourage the DM to use them whenever the outcome of anything should be uncertain. That's not to say they should go overboard and demand loads of checks for every minute detail; they absolutely shouldn't, in fact if anything many DM's should ask for fewer checks, but every so often you get things that need a roll to decide them, or carry an element of risk/reward that makes it worth doing.
Because the best thing about D&D, or roleplaying games in general, is that it's not about using the prescribed actions in the most efficient way possible; the whole reason we have DM's running these things is because a player can ask to do literally anything they want. Whether they can succeed at what they want to do is a whole other matter though. 😉
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
In very specific circumstances I could see it being a thing you did (very loud ship at sea and heavy rain blocks clear vision) but having them do it every time just because it's pretty silly to me.
Bear in mind that raw, unaffiliated skill checks don't exist -- every check is an ability check. So you might feel like a maneuver involves Sleight of Hand, but ask yourself, does it test Dexterity? Is this something that relies on Dexterity?
I don't wanna answer it for you. Just keep it in mind.
Honestly sounds like a good time for the players.
Isn't it the goal of counterspell to "interrupt" the casting of another?
So if I as the original cater of fireball, then cast counterspell to counter someone else, didn't I interrupt my own casting?
No, because the interruption is targeted against a specific spellcasting.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Only if you target yourself when you cast counterspell... which I suppose you could do.
But why?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Regarding whether or not you can "hide" the fact you're counterspelling or casting a spell by performing the somatic component behind your back, I would say that probably shouldn't work because of the Subtle Spell metamagic option. It specifically makes casting spells without material components completely undetectable (and therefore immune to being counterspelled - including counterspell itself.)
If a special feature gives an ability, it's probably safe to assume that isn't how the ability normally works.