You only need one hand to fulfill a somatic component, and most PCs have two.
Further, we already know the rules unambiguously allow someone to counterspell someone else’s counterspell of their spell (I’m glad everyone already knows what this thread is about or else parsing that would be a nightmare). Maybe this is because the required components have already been fulfilled by the time the first counterspell goes off. We don’t really know, because the rules don’t care.
The idea that the first caster is still in the process of waving their hands about in the moment they would have to cast their counterspell is an assumption. If it seems reasonable that this assumption, if true, would invalidate something we know for a fact to be the rule as written and as intended, the assumption is probably incorrect.
Grab some powder, any will do let's say sugar since that's often easily available. Also get some substance that's thicker than basic liquid but similar, like hair gel or mayonnaise - e'll call these Ingredients. Alternatively grab a stick or stone. We'll call this Object.
Step 1: say Abracadabra.
Step 2, to be taken at the same time as Step 1: mush the Ingredients together in your palm Or grab Object. With the same hand use a finger to trace an upward pointing triangle.
Step 3, a second after steps 1 and 2, use your other hand to trace a cross X in the air.
Did you do it?
Congrats, you just performed the same level of complexity as filling the component requirements for Fireball and Counterspell. Now, if you can do it in real - why in the white ghostly fluff is it hard to imagine a wizard who has trained for years to do it being able to do the same?
You know, I re-read the rule on the components just now, and you're absolutely right about the one handed thing. Gotta be honest, it probably should've clicked with me at the beginning (since you can hold a weapon and cast spells and all that). I guess I just got caught up in the description of Burning Hands, and was like, "yeah, so spells use two hands."
So, I guess I'd rule out that a player would require a free hand in order to cast the counterspell, if they were already casting a spell. Feels somewhat unfair to assume my ruling goes against the games rules. I think it's fair to say that a caster is still waiving their hands about when a counterspell occurs, since it's supposed to occur before the spell is complete (which I assume includes hand gestures and the like). A player can do whatever they want within the boundaries of the game, like countering a counterspell, but the rules don't state that this doesn't create potential complications (like how it may interrupt the spell you're casting).
Granted, even if the intent was for the spell to work, even if the counterspell would otherwise interrupt the somatic components, it's kinda hard for a rulebook to address this. It's a really niche situation, considering how rare a 'players reaction to an opponents reaction to the same players action' scenario is, let alone adding additional potential elements. Hell, a different GM might agree with me, but instead have a player complete a concentration check. Hell, I might even do that if persuaded. I'm not sure if that's how the rule is meant to be implemented, but it seems to make sense based on how the game tries to describe these situations.
My issue with Counterspelling Counterspell is less about material/somatic components and simply about timing.
One assumes that someone would have to recognize a spell in the process of being cast in order to counterspell it, even if they're expecting that spell and ready to do so. That is to say, the spell that Counterspell is targeting/attempting to stop must already be in the process of being cast. Counterspell is itself a spell, if an especially swift one, and takes a moment or two to complete - you don't just *****slap the weave and say "NO BAD LICH KING", and even if you did, *****slapping the weave and saying NBLK takes a moment.
Now. Assuming someone else is trying to Counterspell your Counterspell...they would need to recognize you beginning to cast Counterspell, and then successfully *****slap the weave and say "NO BAD ADVENTURE BOI" before you, yourself, finish *****slapping the weave and yelling "NO BAD LICH KING". They need to recognize you casting a very quick, reaction-speed spell, recognize what that spell is, decide to counter it, and then complete the exact same set of gestures and incantations you are already in the middle of performing, BEFORE you can complete those gestures and incantations. While already in the middle of focusing on another spell they're attempting to see through to completion.
It's hogwash. Total hogwash. Yes, RAW allows it without question, but RAW allows a lot of things 'without question' that are bloody damn well worth questioning.
My preferred notion would be allowing a particularly momentous creature, i.e. said Lich King, to either use a legendary resistance to foil the counterspell completely - which seems perfectly in line with such creatures, I'd expect a Lich King to be able to simply blow through the counterspell of a Foolish Mortal Insect(C) a few times in a given day if it wants to - or use a legendary action to force a contested check, rather than countering the counter. Or rather, interrupting the interrupt, to use proper terminology here. The latter rule is not as clean as the former and I don't know if I'd do that, but in either case I'd let my players know that Counterspell cannot be used against itself - either on the critter side or the player side. No Counterspelling the Lich King's own Counterspells.
Now yes, this is Rules and Game Mechanics, which is generally concerned only with RAW. And in Adventurer's league, Counterspell can target both itself and every other reaction spell in the game. I would propose that this is moose piss and should absolutely be addressed in any theoretical 5.5e that comes out, but yeah. Consider experimenting with the idea that Counterspell is final in your games, with the caveat that uses of legendary resistance can nullify Counterspell the same way that they can nullify other control spells.
Never DM for a group of spellcasters with Counterspell who then face enemies who also have Counterspell. It becomes a game of Counterspell-tag.
I would love to have this happen! I mean, I've described a single instance as an awesome wizard duel, but multiples could be described as an epic wizard clash... possibly (depending on their levels) the stuff of legends.
They need to recognize you casting a very quick, reaction-speed spell, recognize what that spell is, decide to counter it, and then complete the exact same set of gestures and incantations you are already in the middle of performing, BEFORE you can complete those gestures and incantations. While already in the middle of focusing on another spell they're attempting to see through to completion.
Again, you're making a big assumption about the simultaneity of events. If it leads you to conclude that the whole affair is hogwash, your assumption is probably wrong.
There is nothing in any relevant book that precludes the fulfillment of components having been completed before the first counterspell goes off.
We know what the rule is. It's up to us to decide what narrative makes sense in context of the rule.
Heh. Which is fine if that's how you want to run your game, or if you're stuck in a situation where the rules take precedence over logic.
I'm hard pressed to think of a narrative, however, in which it makes sense for one Counterspell to be started after another Counterspell, and then completed before that first Counterspell, in time for a spell to be used to reactively interrupt itself. Anyone who's played Magic the Gathering more than ten minutes in their life is aware of blue decks Bluedecking each other into nonsense and idiocy, but in reality it should be almost impossible for someone to out-interrupt an interrupt spell. Counterspell, speaking in terms of virtually any sensible story narrative, should be virtually impossible to counter unless someone else is already holding a half-completed Counterspell on a hair trigger.
Which, by RAW, is impossible since reactions cannot be held.
If the letter of the law is critical to your game because you're running AL or otherwise, then yes - Counterspell can target itself, and you can cast Counterspell in the midst of another spell freely, without any impact on the spell you're protecting with your own Counterspell. Narratively it makes no bloody sense whatsoever; I always wince a little when I see a thirty-Counterspell pileup.
Counterspell, speaking in terms of virtually any sensible story narrative, should be virtually impossible to counter unless someone else is already holding a half-completed Counterspell on a hair trigger.
Which, by RAW, is impossible since reactions cannot be held.
The mechanics aren't necessarily a good model for how things should be narrated; they're operating at the game level, not the in-world fiction level. RAW the Shield spell retroactively turns an attack that already hit you into one that didn't. The only sensible narrative if you're going to limit yourself to what traspired at the game level is that the Shield spell turned back time. The common sense explation is that the character saw a certain hit coming and deflected it in the nick of time.
That's not to say you're wrong to prefer your interpretation, but there's also no reason similar logic can't be applied to counterspell.
Worth pointing out that this is largely an academic exercise since only very high-CR stat blocks like the lich pack counterspell in the first place. Counterspell is one of those mechanics that's not very fun when used against the players, so the devs only put it in by default in exceptional circumstances.
Counterspell, speaking in terms of virtually any sensible story narrative, should be virtually impossible to counter
D&D's 6-second combat round is an abstraction, potentially representing multiple thrusts, parries, counterattacks, etc. The same can be true for magic. If I were to witness a wizard (or superhero) clash in a movie, it might look something like:
A crimson beam extends from the evil Warlock, to be met by a cerulean beam from the good wizard. The stalemate holds initially, but the evil Warlock redoubles his efforts and the glowing collision point is pushed back towards the good wizard. Suddenly, the good wizard's sorcerous ally adds his own emerald beam to the mix!
I have certainly seen such things in movies and comic books (which admittedly need to be far more visual about such matters so as not to confuse the viewer).
However, I maintain that players Counterspelling the Counterspell to their Counterspell of the lich's Counterspell is utterly ridiculous. There is a finite limit to the amount of Counterspell chaining and countering counters to counters I'm willing to tolerate as a DM, and that limit is quite low before Shit Starts Happening. People start chaining that shit much past two and I'm honestly strongly inclined to go look up the Wild Magic table and roll me some percentile, see what happens when people mutilate the weave that way.
I don't know if this helps, but I have it on good authority that the somatic component of counterspell is presenting one's middle finger. So if you're casting fireball and someone gives you the finger to try to interrupt you, then you just give them the finger right back without missing a beat in your own spellcasting.
I don't know if this helps, but I have it on good authority that the somatic component of counterspell is presenting one's middle finger. So if you're casting fireball and someone gives you the finger to try to interrupt you, then you just give them the finger right back without missing a beat in your own spellcasting.
And then burn them to a crisp.
This, everything about this, just... yes, you win the internet.
However, I maintain that players Counterspelling the Counterspell to their Counterspell of the lich's Counterspell is utterly ridiculous. There is a finite limit to the amount of Counterspell chaining and countering counters to counters I'm willing to tolerate as a DM, and that limit is quite low before Shit Starts Happening. People start chaining that shit much past two and I'm honestly strongly inclined to go look up the Wild Magic table and roll me some percentile, see what happens when people mutilate the weave that way.
That limit is the Reaction: you have only per round.
Yep, same with the enemies, they only get one reaction per round.
You can only really get more than one level deep chaining if *both* sides have *multiple* spellcasters with counterspell. That's probably going to be a pretty rare occurence.
(I'm DMing a campaign, and my campaign has 2 characters who might have counterspell - a Warlock and a Bard (who would have to pick it up with the times the bard can get non-bard spells). I think in the entire campaign up to level 9 so far, they've never faced*multiple* enemies with counterspell. Even enemies with natural spellcasting often don't have it.)
If perchance in my campaign they do face multiple counterspelling enemis and actually get in to a counterspell duel that goes the full 4 layers deep (two counterspells from us, two counterspells from the other guys) I'd think that's totally badass. And it would burn everyone's spell slots to nothing in like 2 rounds.
It would for sure be annoying if it happened all the time, but I *really* doubt there's many campaigns where that would be the case. If there are, those are the campaigns where it should be houseruled away for annoyance reasons. But if it happens once every few levels or so? I'd say just roll with it. Sounds awesome.
However, I maintain that players Counterspelling the Counterspell to their Counterspell of the lich's Counterspell is utterly ridiculous. There is a finite limit to the amount of Counterspell chaining and countering counters to counters I'm willing to tolerate as a DM, and that limit is quite low before Shit Starts Happening. People start chaining that shit much past two and I'm honestly strongly inclined to go look up the Wild Magic table and roll me some percentile, see what happens when people mutilate the weave that way.
That limit is the Reaction: you have only per round.
^This.
Yes, the idea of some casters chaining all their spell slots on a Counterspell war is quite ridiculous. Good thing it can't happen to begin with!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Using a counterspell as an reaction in your own turn is broken.
IF 2 Wizards would make a wizzard duell, the one with the highest INI wins.
The defending wizard could never counter say a true polymorph.
I think that this rule is broken and should be fixed.
Make it so like a counter spell say castet on the 5th level above cant be countert or somthing in that line by a counterspell that isnt atleast casted 2 levels higher as the used counterspell.
The fact that you can use your reaction in your own turn is a bad rule.
It would way batter if the rule would be if you use your counter spell as a reaction on you turn you need to use your bonus action. which would than would let the wizzard that countert the counterspell with a cantrip..
IF 2 Wizzards would make a wizzard duell, the one with the highest INI wins.
There is no way for the defending wizzard to counter a importent spell of the other wizzard.
He cant do anything to stop say polymorph.
I think that this rule is broken and should be fixed.
Make it so like a counter spell say castet on the 5th level above cant be countert or somthing in that line.
So if you want to counter a higher level spell you need to spent a higher spell slot and not running the risk to loos it.
It makes spell caster way to powerfull as they allready are
For the love of all that is fluffy, it's Wizard. One Z.
I'm personally fine with the ruling. It doesn't make the caster more powerful - it means you've used your reaction and an extra 3rd+ spell slot on top of the spell slot you cast the original spell with. So you're burning through your resources much faster. Even if the enemy caster kept counterspelling, if you did this as well you'll end up burning your slots to nothing, while they'll still have a lot more and now you can't counterspell them.
Can Player A cast fireball and at the same time Cast Counterspell? If so this would make in rollplay terms no sens.
Or does Player A interrupt his Fireball to CAst Coutnerspell? If so wy you not allways interrupt your spell if you see some one using his Coutnerspell.
I think they should rework how counterspell works.
Why does it make no sense to be casting fireball and counterspell at the same time? Counterspell’s only component is somatic and most people have two hands.
You only need one hand to fulfill a somatic component, and most PCs have two.
Further, we already know the rules unambiguously allow someone to counterspell someone else’s counterspell of their spell (I’m glad everyone already knows what this thread is about or else parsing that would be a nightmare). Maybe this is because the required components have already been fulfilled by the time the first counterspell goes off. We don’t really know, because the rules don’t care.
The idea that the first caster is still in the process of waving their hands about in the moment they would have to cast their counterspell is an assumption. If it seems reasonable that this assumption, if true, would invalidate something we know for a fact to be the rule as written and as intended, the assumption is probably incorrect.
Grab some powder, any will do let's say sugar since that's often easily available. Also get some substance that's thicker than basic liquid but similar, like hair gel or mayonnaise - e'll call these Ingredients. Alternatively grab a stick or stone. We'll call this Object.
Step 1: say Abracadabra.
Step 2, to be taken at the same time as Step 1: mush the Ingredients together in your palm Or grab Object. With the same hand use a finger to trace an upward pointing triangle.
Step 3, a second after steps 1 and 2, use your other hand to trace a cross X in the air.
Did you do it?
Congrats, you just performed the same level of complexity as filling the component requirements for Fireball and Counterspell. Now, if you can do it in real - why in the white ghostly fluff is it hard to imagine a wizard who has trained for years to do it being able to do the same?
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
You know, I re-read the rule on the components just now, and you're absolutely right about the one handed thing. Gotta be honest, it probably should've clicked with me at the beginning (since you can hold a weapon and cast spells and all that). I guess I just got caught up in the description of Burning Hands, and was like, "yeah, so spells use two hands."
So, I guess I'd rule out that a player would require a free hand in order to cast the counterspell, if they were already casting a spell. Feels somewhat unfair to assume my ruling goes against the games rules. I think it's fair to say that a caster is still waiving their hands about when a counterspell occurs, since it's supposed to occur before the spell is complete (which I assume includes hand gestures and the like). A player can do whatever they want within the boundaries of the game, like countering a counterspell, but the rules don't state that this doesn't create potential complications (like how it may interrupt the spell you're casting).
Granted, even if the intent was for the spell to work, even if the counterspell would otherwise interrupt the somatic components, it's kinda hard for a rulebook to address this. It's a really niche situation, considering how rare a 'players reaction to an opponents reaction to the same players action' scenario is, let alone adding additional potential elements. Hell, a different GM might agree with me, but instead have a player complete a concentration check. Hell, I might even do that if persuaded. I'm not sure if that's how the rule is meant to be implemented, but it seems to make sense based on how the game tries to describe these situations.
My issue with Counterspelling Counterspell is less about material/somatic components and simply about timing.
One assumes that someone would have to recognize a spell in the process of being cast in order to counterspell it, even if they're expecting that spell and ready to do so. That is to say, the spell that Counterspell is targeting/attempting to stop must already be in the process of being cast. Counterspell is itself a spell, if an especially swift one, and takes a moment or two to complete - you don't just *****slap the weave and say "NO BAD LICH KING", and even if you did, *****slapping the weave and saying NBLK takes a moment.
Now. Assuming someone else is trying to Counterspell your Counterspell...they would need to recognize you beginning to cast Counterspell, and then successfully *****slap the weave and say "NO BAD ADVENTURE BOI" before you, yourself, finish *****slapping the weave and yelling "NO BAD LICH KING". They need to recognize you casting a very quick, reaction-speed spell, recognize what that spell is, decide to counter it, and then complete the exact same set of gestures and incantations you are already in the middle of performing, BEFORE you can complete those gestures and incantations. While already in the middle of focusing on another spell they're attempting to see through to completion.
It's hogwash. Total hogwash. Yes, RAW allows it without question, but RAW allows a lot of things 'without question' that are bloody damn well worth questioning.
My preferred notion would be allowing a particularly momentous creature, i.e. said Lich King, to either use a legendary resistance to foil the counterspell completely - which seems perfectly in line with such creatures, I'd expect a Lich King to be able to simply blow through the counterspell of a Foolish Mortal Insect(C) a few times in a given day if it wants to - or use a legendary action to force a contested check, rather than countering the counter. Or rather, interrupting the interrupt, to use proper terminology here. The latter rule is not as clean as the former and I don't know if I'd do that, but in either case I'd let my players know that Counterspell cannot be used against itself - either on the critter side or the player side. No Counterspelling the Lich King's own Counterspells.
Now yes, this is Rules and Game Mechanics, which is generally concerned only with RAW. And in Adventurer's league, Counterspell can target both itself and every other reaction spell in the game. I would propose that this is moose piss and should absolutely be addressed in any theoretical 5.5e that comes out, but yeah. Consider experimenting with the idea that Counterspell is final in your games, with the caveat that uses of legendary resistance can nullify Counterspell the same way that they can nullify other control spells.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
I would love to have this happen! I mean, I've described a single instance as an awesome wizard duel, but multiples could be described as an epic wizard clash... possibly (depending on their levels) the stuff of legends.
Again, you're making a big assumption about the simultaneity of events. If it leads you to conclude that the whole affair is hogwash, your assumption is probably wrong.
There is nothing in any relevant book that precludes the fulfillment of components having been completed before the first counterspell goes off.
We know what the rule is. It's up to us to decide what narrative makes sense in context of the rule.
Heh. Which is fine if that's how you want to run your game, or if you're stuck in a situation where the rules take precedence over logic.
I'm hard pressed to think of a narrative, however, in which it makes sense for one Counterspell to be started after another Counterspell, and then completed before that first Counterspell, in time for a spell to be used to reactively interrupt itself. Anyone who's played Magic the Gathering more than ten minutes in their life is aware of blue decks Bluedecking each other into nonsense and idiocy, but in reality it should be almost impossible for someone to out-interrupt an interrupt spell. Counterspell, speaking in terms of virtually any sensible story narrative, should be virtually impossible to counter unless someone else is already holding a half-completed Counterspell on a hair trigger.
Which, by RAW, is impossible since reactions cannot be held.
If the letter of the law is critical to your game because you're running AL or otherwise, then yes - Counterspell can target itself, and you can cast Counterspell in the midst of another spell freely, without any impact on the spell you're protecting with your own Counterspell. Narratively it makes no bloody sense whatsoever; I always wince a little when I see a thirty-Counterspell pileup.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
The mechanics aren't necessarily a good model for how things should be narrated; they're operating at the game level, not the in-world fiction level. RAW the Shield spell retroactively turns an attack that already hit you into one that didn't. The only sensible narrative if you're going to limit yourself to what traspired at the game level is that the Shield spell turned back time. The common sense explation is that the character saw a certain hit coming and deflected it in the nick of time.
That's not to say you're wrong to prefer your interpretation, but there's also no reason similar logic can't be applied to counterspell.
Worth pointing out that this is largely an academic exercise since only very high-CR stat blocks like the lich pack counterspell in the first place. Counterspell is one of those mechanics that's not very fun when used against the players, so the devs only put it in by default in exceptional circumstances.
D&D's 6-second combat round is an abstraction, potentially representing multiple thrusts, parries, counterattacks, etc. The same can be true for magic. If I were to witness a wizard (or superhero) clash in a movie, it might look something like:
A crimson beam extends from the evil Warlock, to be met by a cerulean beam from the good wizard. The stalemate holds initially, but the evil Warlock redoubles his efforts and the glowing collision point is pushed back towards the good wizard. Suddenly, the good wizard's sorcerous ally adds his own emerald beam to the mix!
I have certainly seen such things in movies and comic books (which admittedly need to be far more visual about such matters so as not to confuse the viewer).
Heh. All right, all right.
However, I maintain that players Counterspelling the Counterspell to their Counterspell of the lich's Counterspell is utterly ridiculous. There is a finite limit to the amount of Counterspell chaining and countering counters to counters I'm willing to tolerate as a DM, and that limit is quite low before Shit Starts Happening. People start chaining that shit much past two and I'm honestly strongly inclined to go look up the Wild Magic table and roll me some percentile, see what happens when people mutilate the weave that way.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
I don't know if this helps, but I have it on good authority that the somatic component of counterspell is presenting one's middle finger. So if you're casting fireball and someone gives you the finger to try to interrupt you, then you just give them the finger right back without missing a beat in your own spellcasting.
And then burn them to a crisp.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This, everything about this, just... yes, you win the internet.
That limit is the Reaction: you have only per round.
Yep, same with the enemies, they only get one reaction per round.
You can only really get more than one level deep chaining if *both* sides have *multiple* spellcasters with counterspell. That's probably going to be a pretty rare occurence.
(I'm DMing a campaign, and my campaign has 2 characters who might have counterspell - a Warlock and a Bard (who would have to pick it up with the times the bard can get non-bard spells). I think in the entire campaign up to level 9 so far, they've never faced*multiple* enemies with counterspell. Even enemies with natural spellcasting often don't have it.)
If perchance in my campaign they do face multiple counterspelling enemis and actually get in to a counterspell duel that goes the full 4 layers deep (two counterspells from us, two counterspells from the other guys) I'd think that's totally badass. And it would burn everyone's spell slots to nothing in like 2 rounds.
It would for sure be annoying if it happened all the time, but I *really* doubt there's many campaigns where that would be the case. If there are, those are the campaigns where it should be houseruled away for annoyance reasons. But if it happens once every few levels or so? I'd say just roll with it. Sounds awesome.
Remember which sub-forum this thread is in.
^This.
Yes, the idea of some casters chaining all their spell slots on a Counterspell war is quite ridiculous. Good thing it can't happen to begin with!
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Using a counterspell as an reaction in your own turn is broken.
IF 2 Wizards would make a wizzard duell, the one with the highest INI wins.
The defending wizard could never counter say a true polymorph.
I think that this rule is broken and should be fixed.
Make it so like a counter spell say castet on the 5th level above cant be countert or somthing in that line by a counterspell that isnt atleast casted 2 levels higher as the used counterspell.
For the love of all that is fluffy, it's Wizard. One Z.
I'm personally fine with the ruling. It doesn't make the caster more powerful - it means you've used your reaction and an extra 3rd+ spell slot on top of the spell slot you cast the original spell with. So you're burning through your resources much faster. Even if the enemy caster kept counterspelling, if you did this as well you'll end up burning your slots to nothing, while they'll still have a lot more and now you can't counterspell them.
Seems balanced to me.
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
My Problem is the order things are happening.
Player A Action = Casting Fireball
Player B Reaction = CounterSpell
Player A ReactioN = Counterspell
But how?
Can Player A cast fireball and at the same time Cast Counterspell? If so this would make in rollplay terms no sens.
Or does Player A interrupt his Fireball to CAst Coutnerspell? If so wy you not allways interrupt your spell if you see some one using his Coutnerspell.
I think they should rework how counterspell works.
Why does it make no sense to be casting fireball and counterspell at the same time? Counterspell’s only component is somatic and most people have two hands.
Or has Bigby’s sanitizing hand prepared lol.