RAW allows it whether you like it or not. If you are the DM then you can house rule it to what you want it to be.
Probably not still. It's probably again with the wave of new players thanks to COVID-19. I've been seeing a lot of old threads being drug up from the depths lately, usually with "I'm new to D&D". There is an exception to being able to use Counterspell on your turn... the dreaded bonus action spell has been used.
This is the way I think about it if anyone is still interested.
The caster who casts (fireball) cant counterspell a counterspell because realistically he couldnt do the components of both spells and have them both take effect.
A counterspell COULD be counterspelled by ANOTHER person though.
Wizard A casts fireball
Enemy casts counterspell
Wizard B casts counterspell to counter the counterspell
This could work because of the component issue.
One wizard could not do the V, S, M components of a fireball as well as the S components of Counterspell
If you are casting something like Power Word Kill which only has V components, you could cast Counterspell to counter another Counterspell because of the components.
This is the way I think about it. In any case, this is not game breaking or game changing, so just listen to whatever the DM says and go with it since this is a really weird rule.
Additionally, the S components of a spell don't always require one hand. Look at Burning hands. We see that you connect BOTH hands. If I were a DM, I would say that you could still do it if you were down an arm because its not that big of a deal. However, if that is an issue, it depends on the specific S components of the specific spell, so the answer does vary.
I would say if you had MAX spellcasting ability you COULD do the S components of 2 spells if they both don't require both hands because you are focused enough and seasoned enough to know how to do both.
*sigh* D&D... This is what we get for playing a game that requires multiple textbooks to play.
I find this all kinda funny... I absolutely LOVE Counterspell battles (as a DM and as a Player). There is so much back and forth that makes it so much more interesting - casting and counter-casting, magical runes and sparks flying left and right as mages try to use their magic... meanwhile warriors are doing their best to finish the wizards off before the counterspells stop working.
Remember, you only have 3 level three slots. Once they’re gone and you start using up level four slots, you’re going to start rolling Counterspell checks and that’s when it gets more interesting as you start to roll checks to counter.
I have more fun as a DM making the baddies cast Counterspell at level 4 instead of 3 - which can really pre-empt those first rounds and make the players think about whether they should upcast too.
Better yet. I’ll often prep the bad guys with some Globe of Invulnerability, negating 3rd level counterspells entirely. Then it’s a psychological game back and forth and much more cerebral wizards battle.
I get the impression a lot of these examples are people at level 5/6 that never get these options? I can’t recommend enough trying the higher levels out 🙂
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.
Not actually true :)
A wizard casts true polymorph at the other ... it requires a 9th level slot. The opposing wizard uses a 9th level counterspell which automatically succeeds. The original wizard must use a lower level counterspell and thus has to make an ability check against a DC19 to see if the counterspell succeeds.
Feeblemind is perhaps a better example since this can be countered by an 8th or 9th level spell and the original wizard still has a 9th level slot to counter with. However, Feeblemind is an int saving throw which wizards are naturally good at ... so all the counterspell has done is force the attacker to use two high level spell slots to achieve the same goal.
Counterspell battles are a method to increase the resource cost of obtaining a spell effects while also expending some of the defenders resources. If there are only two casters then the only effect of counterspell-> counterspell is to increase the resource cost to both casters of the original casting the spell.
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.
Not actually true :)
A wizard casts true polymorph at the other ... it requires a 9th level slot. The opposing wizard uses a 9th level counterspell which automatically succeeds. The original wizard must use a lower level counterspell and thus has to make an ability check against a DC19 to see if the counterspell succeeds.
Feeblemind is perhaps a better example since this can be countered by an 8th or 9th level spell and the original wizard still has a 9th level slot to counter with. However, Feeblemind is an int saving throw which wizards are naturally good at ... so all the counterspell has done is force the attacker to use two high level spell slots to achieve the same goal.
Counterspell battles are a method to increase the resource cost of obtaining a spell effects while also expending some of the defenders resources. If there are only two casters then the only effect of counterspell-> counterspell is to increase the resource cost to both casters of the original casting the spell.
Also... if you counterspell on your own turn, you leave yourself open to other enemy spells on their turns. I like it as a resource sink that lowers the overall number of effects you would need to track in a larger wizards duel.
Sage advice doesn't contradict the rules as written, but it doesn't clarify the omission of clarity in the rules either because it doesn't give an example of a spell cast as a bonus action.
RAW, you cannot counterspell on the same turn you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action.
"Bonus Action. A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
So, after casting a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action, you can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. That includes counterspelling (or using any spell with a casting time of reaction) on your turn. But after your turn, later in the round (or before in the round) it's fine. Just not during your turn.
Conversely, RAW, this doesn't apply to spells with a casting time of 1 action, and sage advice concurs. You apparently CAN cast counterspell on the same turn you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action... but if we take the rules in the PHB as written... not on the same turn you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action.
Counterspell and any spell cast as a ritual have even more unknowns, because the combinations of these situations were never considered when the rules were written (maybe it never came up during DND Next's playtesting - it's an even rarer set of circumstances).
All this leads me to think that the designers never fully tested the limits of counterspell, nor did any of the people playtesting it... because counterspell is not exciting or fun.
Almost nothing in DnD should be able to deny character agency. When you say "I do something cool!", the DM should say (perhaps like Matt Mercer) "you can certainly try", and dice resolve the odds. Counterspell doesn't do this. Counterspell just says "No" to your cool action and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't it bad enough that some enemies have magic resistance AND legendary saves?
When used by the DM, counterspell shuts down an entire player/class. When used by the players, it shuts down an entire villain. Is either fun?
Perhaps it's just a result of more/less editing or additional late clarifications that weren't retested. But at my table, to make sure everyone has their fun, I rule...
Counterspell whenever you like - on your turn, or someone elses, regardless of what else you cast... BUT...
There is no automatic success. You ALWAYS make a contested check with your spellcasting ability against theirs... AND...
Upcasting has no additional effect - upcast only when you run out of third level slots.
You can as long as you are not casting a BA spell.
I've found it odd but it works. The most evil thing a DM can use counterspell for is countering a healing word spell to bring someone back up....ooh man thats a rough one.
All this leads me to think that the designers never fully tested the limits of counterspell, nor did any of the people playtesting it... because counterspell is not exciting or fun.
Almost nothing in DnD should be able to deny character agency. When you say "I do something cool!", the DM should say (perhaps like Matt Mercer) "you can certainly try", and dice resolve the odds. Counterspell doesn't do this. Counterspell just says "No" to your cool action and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't it bad enough that some enemies have magic resistance AND legendary saves?
When used by the DM, counterspell shuts down an entire player/class. When used by the players, it shuts down an entire villain. Is either fun?
..
Short answer .. Yes, both are fun.
We were in a big battle against an undead dragon and a dracolich and having a fair bit of trouble dealing damage. The paladin finally gets a hit, the dracolich casts a s spell in reaction, my bard counterspells. Both of the paladins attacks hit, they use smite on both succeeding in seriously weakening a very challenging opponent. Both would have missed if I had not succeeded with the counterspell.
As players, both myself and the paladin player felt great being able to tactically bypass the shield spell the dracolich tried to cast.
---
In another situation, my character in a different game tried to cast a fireball. It was counterspelled. We couldn't perceive how. Next round, I tried casting something else and it was also counterspelled. The group modified our tactics to deal with the situation without relying on my spells. It turns out a statue in the room counterspelled things being cast within certain parameters. It was a fun and different sort of challenge and made the specific situation more challenging and interesting by taking the spells my character could cast out of the picture and highlighting contributions from the rest of the group.
So ... is counterspell fun? I would have to say usually YES from my experience.
All this leads me to think that the designers never fully tested the limits of counterspell, nor did any of the people playtesting it... because counterspell is not exciting or fun.
Almost nothing in DnD should be able to deny character agency. When you say "I do something cool!", the DM should say (perhaps like Matt Mercer) "you can certainly try", and dice resolve the odds. Counterspell doesn't do this. Counterspell just says "No" to your cool action and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't it bad enough that some enemies have magic resistance AND legendary saves?
When used by the DM, counterspell shuts down an entire player/class. When used by the players, it shuts down an entire villain. Is either fun?
Not so many enemies have counterspell.
My dice rolled a 1 on my acrobatics roll, so I'm not having fun trying to swing from chandalier to chandalier because the DM says that I fell to the floor in a heap.
Counterspell uses an enemy's reaction, so it probably allows your allies to move around the battlefield unhindered.
Counterspell uses up one of the enemy's spell slots, so reducing what it might have available for their next normal action.
All this leads me to think that the designers never fully tested the limits of counterspell, nor did any of the people playtesting it... because counterspell is not exciting or fun.
Almost nothing in DnD should be able to deny character agency. When you say "I do something cool!", the DM should say (perhaps like Matt Mercer) "you can certainly try", and dice resolve the odds. Counterspell doesn't do this. Counterspell just says "No" to your cool action and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't it bad enough that some enemies have magic resistance AND legendary saves?
When used by the DM, counterspell shuts down an entire player/class. When used by the players, it shuts down an entire villain. Is either fun?
..
Short answer .. Yes, both are fun.
We were in a big battle against an undead dragon and a dracolich and having a fair bit of trouble dealing damage. The paladin finally gets a hit, the dracolich casts a s spell in reaction, my bard counterspells. Both of the paladins attacks hit, they use smite on both succeeding in seriously weakening a very challenging opponent. Both would have missed if I had not succeeded with the counterspell.
As players, both myself and the paladin player felt great being able to tactically bypass the shield spell the dracolich tried to cast.
---
In another situation, my character in a different game tried to cast a fireball. It was counterspelled. We couldn't perceive how. Next round, I tried casting something else and it was also counterspelled. The group modified our tactics to deal with the situation without relying on my spells. It turns out a statue in the room counterspelled things being cast within certain parameters. It was a fun and different sort of challenge and made the specific situation more challenging and interesting by taking the spells my character could cast out of the picture and highlighting contributions from the rest of the group.
So ... is counterspell fun? I would have to say usually YES from my experience.
This is your opinon, thus subjective. You had fun, due to the nature of the narrative you were ingaged in. This is tangential to the game mechanics.
I only point out that since there is no action involved in counterspelling, no roll or mechanic involved, so there is much less possibility for fun. After all, rolling dice can be fun because there is innately a risk/reward game mechanic. Not rolling dice may be less fun - can't we agree?
I think that "I like it the way it is" doesn't really touch upon the issue of the game mechanics.
Moreover, the point of my post is to show that RAW, you can't counterspell after you cast a bonus action spell, but you can after casting an action spell, and that sage advice did not update this even in their clarification. And that is another reason to revise or houserule your counterspelling.
All this leads me to think that the designers never fully tested the limits of counterspell, nor did any of the people playtesting it... because counterspell is not exciting or fun.
Almost nothing in DnD should be able to deny character agency. When you say "I do something cool!", the DM should say (perhaps like Matt Mercer) "you can certainly try", and dice resolve the odds. Counterspell doesn't do this. Counterspell just says "No" to your cool action and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't it bad enough that some enemies have magic resistance AND legendary saves?
When used by the DM, counterspell shuts down an entire player/class. When used by the players, it shuts down an entire villain. Is either fun?
Not so many enemies have counterspell.
My dice rolled a 1 on my acrobatics roll, so I'm not having fun trying to swing from chandalier to chandalier because the DM says that I fell to the floor in a heap.
Counterspell uses an enemy's reaction, so it probably allows your allies to move around the battlefield unhindered.
Counterspell uses up one of the enemy's spell slots, so reducing what it might have available for their next normal action.
The point of my post is really to show that, RAW, you can't counterspell after a bonus action spell. But you can counterspell after a 1 action spell.
Whether something is fun or not is completely subjective. But I propose that, since rolling a die is something that a player can physically do, it is possibly more fun that not being able to do anything (a la counterspell as it stands).
In my opinion, both these postulations encourage a DM to modify the RAW in order to be more consistent (you can counterspell after either type of spell on your turn), and more forgiving or more subjectively fun to whoever is having their action/spell terminated without recourse on their turn.
I also, personally, find that having a chance of success or failure in all things, is more in line with the core goals of the game rules in general.
Rules errata states that you can Counterspell a Counterspell even if you're already casting a spell.
Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn?
You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.
As has been said, the only time you would not be able to do this is if you've already cast a spell as a Bonus Action. But if you've already cast a Bonus Action spell you wouldn't be able to cast Fireball anyway, based on my understanding.
Rules errata states that you can Counterspell a Counterspell even if you're already casting a spell.
Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn?
You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.
As has been said, the only time you would not be able to do this is if you've already cast a spell as a Bonus Action. But if you've already cast a Bonus Action spell you wouldn't be able to cast Fireball anyway, based on my understanding.
Yep, exactly. You could cast a cantrip after casting a bonus action spell.
All this leads me to think that the designers never fully tested the limits of counterspell, nor did any of the people playtesting it... because counterspell is not exciting or fun.
Almost nothing in DnD should be able to deny character agency. When you say "I do something cool!", the DM should say (perhaps like Matt Mercer) "you can certainly try", and dice resolve the odds. Counterspell doesn't do this. Counterspell just says "No" to your cool action and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't it bad enough that some enemies have magic resistance AND legendary saves?
When used by the DM, counterspell shuts down an entire player/class. When used by the players, it shuts down an entire villain. Is either fun?
Not so many enemies have counterspell.
My dice rolled a 1 on my acrobatics roll, so I'm not having fun trying to swing from chandalier to chandalier because the DM says that I fell to the floor in a heap.
Counterspell uses an enemy's reaction, so it probably allows your allies to move around the battlefield unhindered.
Counterspell uses up one of the enemy's spell slots, so reducing what it might have available for their next normal action.
The point of my post is really to show that, RAW, you can't counterspell after a bonus action spell. But you can counterspell after a 1 action spell.
Whether something is fun or not is completely subjective. But I propose that, since rolling a die is something that a player can physically do, it is possibly more fun that not being able to do anything (a la counterspell as it stands).
In my opinion, both these postulations encourage a DM to modify the RAW in order to be more consistent (you can counterspell after either type of spell on your turn), and more forgiving or more subjectively fun to whoever is having their action/spell terminated without recourse on their turn.
I also, personally, find that having a chance of success or failure in all things, is more in line with the core goals of the game rules in general.
You can use Defensive Duelist to negate an attack without a roll. Rogues can succeed on certain checks regardless of their skill roll when using Reliable Talent and Expertise. Divination wizards can choose a die roll. Storm Clerics can decide not to roll damage and do the maximum. The PWK spell doesn’t have saving throws.
DnD isn’t just “use rolls for everything because rolling is fun”, it’s a tactical game. There are counters for things. Placement matters. Location matters.
What Counterspell is trying to teach you, is this:
1) Range is important. Those 60ft range spells just dropped in value.
2) Movement is important. You can walk out of range to cast.
3) Readying spells outside of Counterspell range is important.
4) Using line of sight to block Counterspell is important.
5) Countering Counterspell works.
6) Persuading them to use their reaction before you cast, with an Opp Attack for example, also works.
What I hear often when a player is frustrated by Counterspell, it’s often because they’ve literally done none of those things above and just want to cast spells without regard for the tactical part of the game. And each time I’ve given them the above strategies, suddenly it’s not a deal anymore and the RAW work just fine.
i think i read the entire thread and i didnt see the point of view im about to discuss, so please point me to that part if you are to repeat yourselves.
"Counterspell: You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell......... "
I would like to focus on the part of "in the process of casting a spell". You dont counter the spell after its was casted. You interrupt, lets say, the way of mana forming the spell actually, before it was formed. So, lets say caster A is in the process of casting a spell and caster B is reacting with a counterspell. Then, from this point of view, if caster A wants to counter the counterspell, he will have to abandon the process of the initial spell to react to counterspell. He can of course do this, but the initial spell will be lost.
Thats how i see it. If you think im wrong, please let me know and we can discuss. Also, as i said at the beginning, if this was discussed already, please point me to that part.
i think i read the entire thread and i didnt see the point of view im about to discuss, so please point me to that part if you are to repeat yourselves.
"Counterspell: You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell......... "
I would like to focus on the part of "in the process of casting a spell". You dont counter the spell after its was casted. You interrupt, lets say, the way of mana forming the spell actually, before it was formed. So, lets say caster A is in the process of casting a spell and caster B is reacting with a counterspell. Then, from this point of view, if caster A wants to counter the counterspell, he will have to abandon the process of the initial spell to react to counterspell. He can of course do this, but the initial spell will be lost.
Thats how i see it. If you think im wrong, please let me know and we can discuss. Also, as i said at the beginning, if this was discussed already, please point me to that part.
That's incorrect and has been cleared up by the game designers in sage advice. If you are casting a spell and someone counterspells it then you can counterspell that counterspell as long as you haven't cast or are casting a spell as a bonus action on your turn and still have a reaction available. Pretty black and white.
Still, you didnt clear my point. "You are in the process of casting a spell".
If what (almost) everyone is saying is true, then you actually already shoot the fireball, the opponent casts his counterspell on the already ongoing fireball, and then you start casting counterspell too.
Is that how it is?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is this argument still a thing?
RAW allows it whether you like it or not. If you are the DM then you can house rule it to what you want it to be.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Probably not still. It's probably again with the wave of new players thanks to COVID-19. I've been seeing a lot of old threads being drug up from the depths lately, usually with "I'm new to D&D". There is an exception to being able to use Counterspell on your turn... the dreaded bonus action spell has been used.
This is the way I think about it if anyone is still interested.
The caster who casts (fireball) cant counterspell a counterspell because realistically he couldnt do the components of both spells and have them both take effect.
A counterspell COULD be counterspelled by ANOTHER person though.
This could work because of the component issue.
One wizard could not do the V, S, M components of a fireball as well as the S components of Counterspell
If you are casting something like Power Word Kill which only has V components, you could cast Counterspell to counter another Counterspell because of the components.
This is the way I think about it. In any case, this is not game breaking or game changing, so just listen to whatever the DM says and go with it since this is a really weird rule.
Additionally, the S components of a spell don't always require one hand. Look at Burning hands. We see that you connect BOTH hands. If I were a DM, I would say that you could still do it if you were down an arm because its not that big of a deal. However, if that is an issue, it depends on the specific S components of the specific spell, so the answer does vary.
I would say if you had MAX spellcasting ability you COULD do the S components of 2 spells if they both don't require both hands because you are focused enough and seasoned enough to know how to do both.
*sigh* D&D... This is what we get for playing a game that requires multiple textbooks to play.
I find this all kinda funny... I absolutely LOVE Counterspell battles (as a DM and as a Player). There is so much back and forth that makes it so much more interesting - casting and counter-casting, magical runes and sparks flying left and right as mages try to use their magic... meanwhile warriors are doing their best to finish the wizards off before the counterspells stop working.
Remember, you only have 3 level three slots. Once they’re gone and you start using up level four slots, you’re going to start rolling Counterspell checks and that’s when it gets more interesting as you start to roll checks to counter.
I have more fun as a DM making the baddies cast Counterspell at level 4 instead of 3 - which can really pre-empt those first rounds and make the players think about whether they should upcast too.
Better yet. I’ll often prep the bad guys with some Globe of Invulnerability, negating 3rd level counterspells entirely. Then it’s a psychological game back and forth and much more cerebral wizards battle.
I get the impression a lot of these examples are people at level 5/6 that never get these options? I can’t recommend enough trying the higher levels out 🙂
Not actually true :)
A wizard casts true polymorph at the other ... it requires a 9th level slot. The opposing wizard uses a 9th level counterspell which automatically succeeds. The original wizard must use a lower level counterspell and thus has to make an ability check against a DC19 to see if the counterspell succeeds.
Feeblemind is perhaps a better example since this can be countered by an 8th or 9th level spell and the original wizard still has a 9th level slot to counter with. However, Feeblemind is an int saving throw which wizards are naturally good at ... so all the counterspell has done is force the attacker to use two high level spell slots to achieve the same goal.
Counterspell battles are a method to increase the resource cost of obtaining a spell effects while also expending some of the defenders resources. If there are only two casters then the only effect of counterspell-> counterspell is to increase the resource cost to both casters of the original casting the spell.
Also... if you counterspell on your own turn, you leave yourself open to other enemy spells on their turns. I like it as a resource sink that lowers the overall number of effects you would need to track in a larger wizards duel.
Sage advice doesn't contradict the rules as written, but it doesn't clarify the omission of clarity in the rules either because it doesn't give an example of a spell cast as a bonus action.
RAW, you cannot counterspell on the same turn you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action.
"Bonus Action. A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
So, after casting a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action, you can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. That includes counterspelling (or using any spell with a casting time of reaction) on your turn. But after your turn, later in the round (or before in the round) it's fine. Just not during your turn.
Conversely, RAW, this doesn't apply to spells with a casting time of 1 action, and sage advice concurs. You apparently CAN cast counterspell on the same turn you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action... but if we take the rules in the PHB as written... not on the same turn you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action.
Counterspell and any spell cast as a ritual have even more unknowns, because the combinations of these situations were never considered when the rules were written (maybe it never came up during DND Next's playtesting - it's an even rarer set of circumstances).
All this leads me to think that the designers never fully tested the limits of counterspell, nor did any of the people playtesting it... because counterspell is not exciting or fun.
Almost nothing in DnD should be able to deny character agency. When you say "I do something cool!", the DM should say (perhaps like Matt Mercer) "you can certainly try", and dice resolve the odds. Counterspell doesn't do this. Counterspell just says "No" to your cool action and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't it bad enough that some enemies have magic resistance AND legendary saves?
When used by the DM, counterspell shuts down an entire player/class. When used by the players, it shuts down an entire villain. Is either fun?
Perhaps it's just a result of more/less editing or additional late clarifications that weren't retested. But at my table, to make sure everyone has their fun, I rule...
Yeah that covers most of it rules wise...
You can as long as you are not casting a BA spell.
I've found it odd but it works. The most evil thing a DM can use counterspell for is countering a healing word spell to bring someone back up....ooh man thats a rough one.
Short answer .. Yes, both are fun.
We were in a big battle against an undead dragon and a dracolich and having a fair bit of trouble dealing damage. The paladin finally gets a hit, the dracolich casts a s spell in reaction, my bard counterspells. Both of the paladins attacks hit, they use smite on both succeeding in seriously weakening a very challenging opponent. Both would have missed if I had not succeeded with the counterspell.
As players, both myself and the paladin player felt great being able to tactically bypass the shield spell the dracolich tried to cast.
---
In another situation, my character in a different game tried to cast a fireball. It was counterspelled. We couldn't perceive how. Next round, I tried casting something else and it was also counterspelled. The group modified our tactics to deal with the situation without relying on my spells. It turns out a statue in the room counterspelled things being cast within certain parameters. It was a fun and different sort of challenge and made the specific situation more challenging and interesting by taking the spells my character could cast out of the picture and highlighting contributions from the rest of the group.
So ... is counterspell fun? I would have to say usually YES from my experience.
Not so many enemies have counterspell.
My dice rolled a 1 on my acrobatics roll, so I'm not having fun trying to swing from chandalier to chandalier because the DM says that I fell to the floor in a heap.
Counterspell uses an enemy's reaction, so it probably allows your allies to move around the battlefield unhindered.
Counterspell uses up one of the enemy's spell slots, so reducing what it might have available for their next normal action.
This is your opinon, thus subjective. You had fun, due to the nature of the narrative you were ingaged in. This is tangential to the game mechanics.
I only point out that since there is no action involved in counterspelling, no roll or mechanic involved, so there is much less possibility for fun. After all, rolling dice can be fun because there is innately a risk/reward game mechanic. Not rolling dice may be less fun - can't we agree?
I think that "I like it the way it is" doesn't really touch upon the issue of the game mechanics.
Moreover, the point of my post is to show that RAW, you can't counterspell after you cast a bonus action spell, but you can after casting an action spell, and that sage advice did not update this even in their clarification. And that is another reason to revise or houserule your counterspelling.
The point of my post is really to show that, RAW, you can't counterspell after a bonus action spell. But you can counterspell after a 1 action spell.
Whether something is fun or not is completely subjective. But I propose that, since rolling a die is something that a player can physically do, it is possibly more fun that not being able to do anything (a la counterspell as it stands).
In my opinion, both these postulations encourage a DM to modify the RAW in order to be more consistent (you can counterspell after either type of spell on your turn), and more forgiving or more subjectively fun to whoever is having their action/spell terminated without recourse on their turn.
I also, personally, find that having a chance of success or failure in all things, is more in line with the core goals of the game rules in general.
Rules errata states that you can Counterspell a Counterspell even if you're already casting a spell.
SA-Compendium.pdf (wizards.com)
As has been said, the only time you would not be able to do this is if you've already cast a spell as a Bonus Action. But if you've already cast a Bonus Action spell you wouldn't be able to cast Fireball anyway, based on my understanding.
Yep, exactly. You could cast a cantrip after casting a bonus action spell.
Good way to burn a lot of spell slots all around
You can use Defensive Duelist to negate an attack without a roll. Rogues can succeed on certain checks regardless of their skill roll when using Reliable Talent and Expertise. Divination wizards can choose a die roll. Storm Clerics can decide not to roll damage and do the maximum. The PWK spell doesn’t have saving throws.
DnD isn’t just “use rolls for everything because rolling is fun”, it’s a tactical game. There are counters for things. Placement matters. Location matters.
What Counterspell is trying to teach you, is this:
1) Range is important. Those 60ft range spells just dropped in value.
2) Movement is important. You can walk out of range to cast.
3) Readying spells outside of Counterspell range is important.
4) Using line of sight to block Counterspell is important.
5) Countering Counterspell works.
6) Persuading them to use their reaction before you cast, with an Opp Attack for example, also works.
What I hear often when a player is frustrated by Counterspell, it’s often because they’ve literally done none of those things above and just want to cast spells without regard for the tactical part of the game. And each time I’ve given them the above strategies, suddenly it’s not a deal anymore and the RAW work just fine.
i think i read the entire thread and i didnt see the point of view im about to discuss, so please point me to that part if you are to repeat yourselves.
"Counterspell: You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell......... "
I would like to focus on the part of "in the process of casting a spell". You dont counter the spell after its was casted. You interrupt, lets say, the way of mana forming the spell actually, before it was formed.
So, lets say caster A is in the process of casting a spell and caster B is reacting with a counterspell.
Then, from this point of view, if caster A wants to counter the counterspell, he will have to abandon the process of the initial spell to react to counterspell. He can of course do this, but the initial spell will be lost.
Thats how i see it. If you think im wrong, please let me know and we can discuss. Also, as i said at the beginning, if this was discussed already, please point me to that part.
That's incorrect and has been cleared up by the game designers in sage advice. If you are casting a spell and someone counterspells it then you can counterspell that counterspell as long as you haven't cast or are casting a spell as a bonus action on your turn and still have a reaction available. Pretty black and white.
Still, you didnt clear my point. "You are in the process of casting a spell".
If what (almost) everyone is saying is true, then you actually already shoot the fireball, the opponent casts his counterspell on the already ongoing fireball, and then you start casting counterspell too.
Is that how it is?