No, you have to use a Reaction, which is an extra action you can take in response to a trigger. In the case of counterspell, the trigger is the "cast spell" of another creature.
Also note that by default you don't know which spell is being cast or at what level.
It's worth noting that this default isn't genuinely the default as it was not mentioned until a book claiming to be optional rules was released.
It's also worth noting that not knowing enough by default to make an informed choice about whether or not to cast counterspell, and if you will cast it at which level, runs counter to almost everything else in the 5th edition system (as there are very few, if any, times when a limited resource has to be spent blind - i.e. you don't spend your superiority dice until you actually hit, you don't have to declare your sneak attack before the attack roll so you can get multiple chances to land it even though it is limited to 1/turn, smite is not a gamble, etc.), thus making it kind of a garbage ruling, no matter how official or default it is considered to be.
It's worth noting that this default isn't genuinely the default as it was not mentioned until a book claiming to be optional rules was released.
No, that's always how the spell's worked. There are no rules in the core books for identifying spells, that say you automatically recognize spells being cast, or that the DM declares spells being cast by monsters. This is RAW and RAI:
It's also worth noting that not knowing enough by default to make an informed choice about whether or not to cast counterspell, and if you will cast it at which level, runs counter to almost everything else in the 5th edition system (as there are very few, if any, times when a limited resource has to be spent blind - i.e. you don't spend your superiority dice until you actually hit, you don't have to declare your sneak attack before the attack roll so you can get multiple chances to land it even though it is limited to 1/turn, smite is not a gamble, etc.), thus making it kind of a garbage ruling, no matter how official or default it is considered to be.
None of the examples you cited are anywhere close to being as potent as Counterspell, which can completely nullify an enemy's action using your reaction, and can't be guarded against with Legendary Resistance.
You're also not firing it blind, since you know the enemy is casting a spell. And even if you knew what spell is being cast, you don't know for sure it's being cast at its lowest level. In that regard, it's no different from Shield; the DM isn't forced to roll monster attacks openly, and if they don't, you're not guaranteed to be able to turn a hit into a miss.
Since XGtE released we do have rules for identifying spells being cast. They can be found under the 'Identifying a Spell' section of XGtE p.85.
To sum it up, a PC can use it's reaction (or an action if applicable) to make an Intelligence(Arcana) check against a DC of 15 + spell level. If the spell is on your class' spell list, the check is made with advantage.
Note that since identifying the spell consumes your reaction, you can't both identify and counterspell. You can conceivably cooperate with your party though. One person can identify it and shout out "Fireball!" and another party member can counterspell it. Crawford agrees with this interpretation btw. I also like that it gives a benefit for more that one person to invest in Arcana.
For the OP:
On your turn you have movement, an action and a possible bonus action. You also have a reaction you can take once per round (resetting at the start of your turn), which can also be used outside your turn for things like attacks of opportunity, abilities that state they use a reaction, or spells that have a casting time of 'one reaction, which you take when blah blah...'. Examples would be Shield or Counterspell.
Since XGtE released we do have rules for identifying spells being cast. They can be found under the 'Identifying a Spell' section of XGtE p.85.
Correct, but they're optional. You still can't assume you're going to have a way of knowing what spells enemies cast unless you talk to your DM and they tell you otherwise.
No, that's always how the spell's worked. There are no rules in the core books for identifying spells, that say you automatically recognize spells being cast, or that the DM declares spells being cast by monsters. This is RAW and RAI:
It wasn't RAW until Xanathar's Guide - you cover why yourself when you say there are no rules in the core books for identifying spells. That means both that the book doesn't say you automatically recognize spells being cast, and that the book doesn't say you don't automatically recognize spells being cast. A truth which allowed DMs that weren't already sure how they would rule to have thoughts like "Well, other things in the system are pretty much set up so that players don't risk wasting limited resources, so I'll go with that approach here too." and for DM's like me that are sure that making limited resources feel like they can be wasted makes players avoid using them for whatever it is that they can feel wasted on to not be contradicted by the rules.
I cannot argue that it wasn't RAI, but I can say that the intent of such a rule is misguided at best.
None of the examples you cited are anywhere close to being as potent as Counterspell
Potency does not inherently need to be a factor. Consistency of attitude of the rules is plenty reason to rule as I do, rather than as the official rules do.
...which can completely nullify an enemy's action using your reaction...
Only for certain actions available to certain enemies, and with the added cost of a spell slot. Overstating the circumstances in which the option even matters while understating the cost is unhelpful to discussion.
...and can't be guarded against with Legendary Resistance.
Legendary Resistance already can't guard against a variety of things, so it really isn't impressive at all that something can go unaffected by Legendary Resistance - literally any attack roll or opposed ability check (2 of the 3 main types of rolls in the game) has the same capability.
You're also not firing it blind, since you know the enemy is casting a spell.
If you don't know what is being cast, that is absolutely "firing blind". You don't know what odds you have of success at counterspelling, and you have no idea if you actually care enough to stop the spell in question - i.e. a person may not feel like spending a 3rd level spell slot on casting counterspell is worth it against an enemy casting a 4th or higher level spell because of the check required to make it actually work, or they may not want to spend a higher level spell slot than 3rd because it's a 3rd or lower level spell they are actually looking at counterspelling, and a person may not feel like counterspelling something like healing or a buff spell being cast by their enemy because they'd rather save their limited counterspelling attempts for things like big damage spells and condition-inflicting spells, but they are being made to decide what level to cast counterspell at if casting it at all without any of that information.
It's like having to pick which potential melee target you are going to make an attack roll against without being given any description of the target beyond "there is a creature in front of you."
...And even if you knew what spell is being cast, you don't know for sure it's being cast at its lowest level. In that regard, it's no different from Shield; the DM isn't forced to roll monster attacks openly, and if they don't, you're not guaranteed to be able to turn a hit into a miss.
And, of no surprise I am sure, I also encourage everyone to DM with enough transparency that even if they don't go full-bore and let players know die roll results, they at least let them know when their limited resources are actually worth being spent.
It is, in my experience, the difference maker between players viewing a spell like shield or counterspell as being worth having and using, or viewing such spells as resource-wasting risks not worth ever bothering with.
I can't hit "Like" on your post enough. Literally all of your points. I find the new interpretation of Counterspell to be very troubling.
Mike Mearls has already stated the *intent* behind Shield is that it's never wasted. I know InquisitiveCoder will say "His tweets aren't actual rules", but he's an important member of the D&D Dev team so there are fewer better people (aside from Jeremy Crawford) to give a clearer picture of what the team intends for the game. That intent is what shapes the core rules of the game.
Almost every game I've played in is open rolling for player and GM. This makes everyone very comfortable, because no matter how the dice fall they fall. I will say in a game where I could waste a 1st lvl spell on Shield, I won't memorize Shield. I have better uses of my limited resources.
It is the same reason that when I take the Lucky feat I always save 1 re-roll for Crits. When I hear "The creature crits you" there is always a spare "nope, reroll that... I'm feeling Lucky tonight." I've also had that GM reroll a 20 and my response is always "It is the will of the dice Gods."
This rule creates a trouble situation when it benefits the players and GM to be as secretive as possible. Player don't say "I cast magic missile" or "I cast a cantrip". Because now they need to say "I can a spell, do you dispel?"
It wasn't RAW until Xanathar's Guide - you cover why yourself when you say there are no rules in the core books for identifying spells.
It was always RAW. The rules of the game are in the core books. Everything else is optional. It'll still be RAW when another big book of player and DM options comes out.
That means both that the book doesn't say you automatically recognize spells being cast, and that the book doesn't say you don't automatically recognize spells being cast.
That's my point: it's up to the DM. As a player, you should assume the most strict interpretation of the rules until you know the DM's rules. You wouldn't plan a new character around multiclassing without asking the DM if they allow multiclassing.
Potency does not inherently need to be a factor. Consistency of attitude of the rules is plenty reason to rule as I do, rather than as the official rules do.
If everyone at your table has fun the way you run things, that's all that matters. But any similarities between unrelated exceptional game features are incidental. Potency, on the other hand, is a very real design consideration. So, you know...caveat emptor if you diregard it.
Only for certain actions available to certain enemies, and with the added cost of a spell slot. Overstating the circumstances in which the option even matters while understating the cost is unhelpful to discussion.
That certain action is almost always the most potent option a monster has, and the monster's going to lose a spell slot too if you succeed so that's a wash. Unlike players, the monster is going to cease to exist in 5-8 rounds and has very little reason to pull its punches.
Legendary Resistance already can't guard against a variety of things, so it really isn't impressive at all that something can go unaffected by Legendary Resistance - literally any attack roll or opposed ability check (2 of the 3 main types of rolls in the game) has the same capability.
An attack roll or ability check will very rarely disintegrate you, paralyze you, or otherwise take you out of the fight. The whole point of Legendary Resistance is that it's a get-out-of-jail-free card against some of the nastiest effects in the game that can trivialize a fight against a single creature.
You don't know what odds you have of success at counterspelling, and you have no idea if you actually care enough to stop the spell in question
That's a fair trade-off for having a one-size-fits-all solution to enemy spellcasting. More often than not, the monster's going to be picking something you want to stop; on any given turn they should be trying to pick the most advantageous action.
Trying to bait out counterspells with low level spells is a losing strategy for monsters, and if the goal is to get players to burn spell slots, a DM can do that easily in other ways.
It is, in my experience, the difference maker between players viewing a spell like shield or counterspell as being worth having and using, or viewing such spells as resource-wasting risks not worth ever bothering with.
What players think is worth picking and what's objectively worth picking sometimes don't line up. Witch Bolt is probably the worst spell in the entire game - so bad that you're usually better off using a cantrip - and yet some people still pick it. I don't expect players to invest enough time into learning the system to figure that kind of thing out.
This rule creates a trouble situation when it benefits the players and GM to be as secretive as possible. Player don't say "I cast magic missile" or "I cast a cantrip". Because now they need to say "I can a spell, do you dispel?"
The DM needs to know what you're casting since you don't know the monster's statistics or abilities. The DM needs perfect information to tell their story and serve as rules arbiter. The players don't need perfect information, and they're better off not having it.
There's no point in trying to gain a mechanical advantage over the DM since their powers are absolute.
Might I suggest a middle path? I imagine if an experienced wizard saw an apprentice wizard casting magic missile she would know instantly what was happening, while the apprentice would struggle to tell the difference between a Teleport and a Finger of Death until it was too late. How to replicate this without too much effort? I suggest a sort of 'Passive Arcana'. Same calculation as perception, 10 + Int (Arcana) modifier. Then the DC to identify a spell is as per Xanathar 15 + level, with advantage applying if the caster shares your class type (advantage in passive situations is +5). So, an experienced wizard might easily have a passive Arcana of 18 - allowing her to instinctively recognise wizard spells up to level 7 and other spells up to level 2. Perhaps add that you can never auto-recognise a spell above a level you can cast.
Now the DM can maintain a simple enough table of which spell levels the party can recognise without effort and can either say: "The cultist casts Healing Word" or "The Necromancer traces an eldrich sign you don't recognise".
Reduces the number of rolls, allows some knowledge to avoid wasting spell slots, keeps some mystery and ominous danger from unknown spells, gives an advantage when dealing with spellcasters of your own kind while leaving you in the dark against unfamiliar magics.
No, that's nonsense. A thing that isn't actually written cannot possibly be the rules as written. There is zero text within the player's handbook, even post errata as far as I am aware, that says no one knows what spell is being cast, or at which level, by merely seeing the spell being cast.
Same as there is zero text within the player's handbook that says everyone always knows what spell is being cast, and at which level, by merely seeing the spell being cast.
What players think is worth picking and what's objectively worth picking sometimes don't line up. Witch Bolt is probably the worst spell in the entire game - so bad that you're usually better off using a cantrip - and yet some people still pick it. I don't expect players to invest enough time into learning the system to figure that kind of thing out.
The argument you make here is one that results in players not taking or using counterspell though, because it is objectively worth picking even if you use the official (optional) spell identification rules because having some chance at stopping things like heavy damage, "instant" death, or severe debilitation (like domination) spells is worth it - but just like witch bolt looks cool at a glance, counterspell when you have to commit to casting it when you have no idea what chance it has of working looks like a really bad choice to make.
The players don't need perfect information, and they're better off not having it.
My findings differ. I used to adhere to all of the "you don't get to know because you are a player"-isms of D&D, and I have changed to being entirely transparent about all rules information (i.e. I won't tell the players what plot twists are in store or other details that vary from story to story, but I will let them know literally anything that is game rules or game rules related, including the odds of success for any particular declared action). The results I have had include zero negatives so far, numerous thanks for "not doing what other DMs do", and a clear improvement in the areas of player enjoyment of game play, player knowledge of rules, and my own level of knowledge of what my players' preferences for all things related to the game play experience are.
There's no point in trying to gain a mechanical advantage over the DM since their powers are absolute.
This is a non sequitur. Trying to gain mechanical advantage over the DM has absolutely nothing to do with anything we've been talking about.
Might I suggest a middle path? I imagine if an experienced wizard saw an apprentice wizard casting magic missile she would know instantly what was happening, while the apprentice would struggle to tell the difference between a Teleport and a Finger of Death until it was too late. How to replicate this without too much effort? I suggest a sort of 'Passive Arcana'. Same calculation as perception, 10 + Int (Arcana) modifier. Then the DC to identify a spell is as per Xanathar 15 + level, with advantage applying if the caster shares your class type (advantage in passive situations is +5). So, an experienced wizard might easily have a passive Arcana of 18 - allowing her to instinctively recognise wizard spells up to level 7 and other spells up to level 2. Perhaps add that you can never auto-recognise a spell above a level you can cast.
Now the DM can maintain a simple enough table of which spell levels the party can recognise without effort and can either say: "The cultist casts Healing Word" or "The Necromancer traces an eldrich sign you don't recognise".
Reduces the number of rolls, allows some knowledge to avoid wasting spell slots, keeps some mystery and ominous danger from unknown spells, gives an advantage when dealing with spellcasters of your own kind while leaving you in the dark against unfamiliar magics.
This would have been less completely unpalatable to me as an official ruling suggestion, though I still have some issues with it.
Specifically, the DC starting at 15 is too high. Characters without above average intelligence or any formal training in all that the arcana skill encompasses should still be at a decent chance of success at identifying the lowest level (and thus most common) spells - for example, I use fireball which is both relatively low-level and iconic in nature. If the DC to successfully ID that guano + hand gestures + magicy-sounding words = big ball of flames is 18 (15 + spell level), the "average smarts" 10 intelligence adventurer only has a 15% chance of correctly predicting what is about to happen when they see hand-wavy chanting guy with a wad of bat poo in hand. That's just not even kind of good enough odds. Setting the base DC at 10 would still leave the example character with greater chance of failure than success, but would make that chance of success (40%) high enough to make it actually feel worthwhile for a player to spend the time rolling the die.
Secondly, identifying spells being a mechanical thing you are required to do in-character is a hindrance to the flow of running the game. It takes the potential process from the single step of the DM (because the player side of the equation isn't changed; either way the player is saying which spell they are casting and at which level, whether the NPCs are attempting to figure it out or not) saying "[insert NPC name] casts [insert spell name]" and moving on to resolving the effects, potentially being interrupted by a player choosing to counter the spell, to a multi-step process in which the DM has to say that a spell is being cast, but not what, so that the player isn't having their choice whether to have their character counter cast or not tainted by information their character doesn't have (and thanks to the idiotic spell identification rules taking up your reaction, and that being the only RAW way to enforce the RAI-but-not-actually-written-until-now character ignorance of spell details) can't possibly have and still be able to act upon.
And lastly, if a DM wants to have "mystery and ominous danger from unknown spells" there is a really simple way to do that; Instead of forcing the players to act ignorant because the relevant information for every has been made officially unusable by their character, make up actually unknown spells.
I.e. No "You don't recognize the fireball being cast by this NPC." Yes "This NPC is casting a spell that is completely alien to you; the words, components, and gestures in use do not match any spell you have ever heard of, but you can tell [here is where you fill in some generalities, like 'that it is bolstering the caster in some way' if it is a buff spell or 'it is going to cause a manifestation of some kind of energy' if it is an attack spell, that still lets the player feel like you aren't playing "gotcha!" and allows them to actually enjoy the story of their character encountering new (or maybe long-forgotten) magic]."
counterspell when you have to commit to casting it when you have no idea what chance it has of working looks like a really bad choice to make.
Sorry, but I don't see it. It's only ever a bad choice if the monster casts something that would have absolutely no benefit (like trying to cast Hold Person on a wild shaped druid.) Otherwise, voiding a monster's action is never a bad move, much less when it's not costing you your own. The more optimal the spell is for the monster, the more optimal counterspell is for the player, and the less likely they are to have a better option. If you play your spellcasting monsters seriously sub-optimally, does it really matter if the players are making optimal choices?
It's also really good insurance. Few spells can avert a TPK or at least a player death the way counterspell can. (Mass Healing Word and Death Ward are the other stand-outs for me in that department.) Even if it only averts disaster once throughout the course of a campaign, that's still worth having.
The difference between being strict or generous with spell identification is the difference between a great spell and an amazing spell. Either way, you want it. I'm currently running Curse of Strahd and I've seen my players seriously impair Strahd's ability to hurt them just by having Counterspell.
My findings differ.
That's fine. Each table is different.
I think it's more fun if players don't automatically know the effects of a spell that's just been cast, whether they have counterspell or not. It adds tension, and if the spell lasts past the fight it gives them another reason to have Identify.
This is a non sequitur. Trying to gain mechanical advantage over the DM has absolutely nothing to do with anything we've been talking about.
Players ask for information during combat all the time, and sometimes it is reasonable to ask them to make a check to see if they can figure out what they want to know, and I don't think it needs to take up a reaction. I don't think it hampers game flow to ask for an Arcana check to identify a spell while it's being cast. If I know a player has counterspell in their arsenal I will give them a brief opportunity to identify the spell and then decide if they want to cast counterspell. It might go something like:
DM: the guy with the pointy hat begins to cast a spell...(slight pause, and at this point the player would have to jump in...)
Player: What is he casting?
DM: Make an Arcana check. [using my homebrew specific proficiency rules it would be an Arcana (Spellcraft) check, but that's beside the point]
Player: (rolls 14)
DM: It's an evocation spell, but something more powerful than you could cast.
Player: I cast counterspell.
If the player doesn't jump in, and I've already described the spell and its effects, then sorry, it's too late to cast it. I make it clear to my players that they need to be on the ball if they want use their reactions. I will allow one Perception, Insight or Intelligence check to be made on their turn without taking up any actions, reactions or bonus actions, however (within reason)
In that example I didn't tell them outright what spell it is, because I think that should depend on level, class etc. If it's a spell they already know being cast by the same class then they would know automatically without a check. If it is a different spell by someone of the same class, but still of a level the character could cast, then I'd grant them Advantage on the check. If it was of a higher level, then no Advantage and I'd probably only let them know the school and that it is a higher level. If it's a different class but of a comparable level, then again no Advantage and I'd probably just let them know the school of magic. If it was a different class and of a higher level than the character could cast, then I would give Disadvantage to the check. I don't know, I'm just coming up with this on the spot, but I think that's exactly the role of the DM - to take the rules as written and apply them dynamically to different situations. That's why I love the Advantage/Disadvantage system, since it provides a very easy way to adjust for different scenarios.
Specifically, the DC starting at 15 is too high. Characters without above average intelligence or any formal training in all that the arcana skill encompasses should still be at a decent chance of success at identifying the lowest level...
I think we all agree that we don't much like the identification of a spell using up the reaction, but I think the DC level isn't too bad. Yes, a fighter of below average intelligence would be unable to identify a fireball while it is being cast. They would recognise the spell only once the ball of fire is streaking through the air. But then, why would this fighter even care? The only use for knowing a spell before its effect is to counter it, and a dim thug can't cast counterspell anyway. The people who would consider countering are the exact people who would be good at identifying spells (doubling the reason it shouldn't use up the reaction). Minimum for counterspell is a level 5 wizard - probably with 18 intelligence by then and Arcana proficiency - easily able to spot all normal Wizard spells and most lower level other spells (without rolling or using a reaction if we use my 'passive' rule). A warlock or sorcerer would be worse at it, but if they don't have decent intelligence and arcana then they just have to admit they aren't that sort of make. And if no one in the party had any counterspell powers then you can skip the mystery, just cast the spell and announce the effect (by naming the spell if that is easiest).
I understand you believe in full transparency, but I guess I think there is still a place for unknown magic. Particularly outside of battle, if some powerful entity cast an enchantment, divination or illusion then it could easily be part of the story that the party does not comprehend it automatically. These rules allow for the players to understand the mechanism behind why the spell is unknown, and what they would need to do to understand it (cast identify, buff someone's arcane skill then try a check, cast detect magic, etc). If that is not the kind of thing that is fun at your table then that's fine.
Minimum for counterspell is a level 5 wizard - probably with 18 intelligence by then and Arcana proficiency - easily able to spot all normal Wizard spells and most lower level other spells (without rolling or using a reaction if we use my 'passive' rule).
The issue with setting the difficulty of something so that a character is "good enough" at it only if you assume a particular investment level (in this case, put proficiency in a specific skill, put a high score in the related ability score to start with and increased that score when given the chance) is that you effectively make it feel mandatory to do that level of investment.
This is a large part of why the skill check DCs from 3.x don't really work, and why 5th edition uses lower DCs (and not just relative to the smaller modfiiers in play, but lower enough that the smaller modifiers still equal greater chances of success when compared to the typical DCs). The clearest example was the lockpicking skill in 3.x; the simplest of locks started at DC 20, so you really barely had any chance at picking them unless you had a relatively high dexterity and were putting the maximum skill ranks you could put into one skill towards this skill, and even then you'd probably still want to find bonuses from other places (feats, masterwork tools, etc.) to actually feel like your character was any good at picking locks. Compare to 5th edition where proficiency in thieves tools alone is often able to feel like your character is "good enough", and having high dex + expertise lets you feel like no lock will ever go un-picked by your character, even without the game including a "take 20" or even "take 10" rule (which 3.x included because the skill system kind of couldn't function without this "ignore it as often as possible" pair of rules).
So the question I ask is this; why shouldn't a warlock or sorcerer with proficiency in arcana and no particular investment in intelligence be the character that is described as "good at identifying spells", with the wizard being easily able to match that, or exceed it if they focus on it?
I will play devil's advocate here, Wizards spend their lives studying magic to understand it. Sorcerers and Warlocks use an innate power or power bargained for to cast their spells. Even the Sorcerers metamagic to me seems more like them pushing themselves harder, investing more of their will, or finding by pure instinct that if they move their hands a little faster the spell is quickened. So identifying a spell being cast, in the heat of battle, purely based on your knowledge of the Arcane seems appropriately harder for Sorcerers and Warlocks, and less so for Wizards.
I however do like the idea that if the spell is on your spell list, you would get advantage to this check which basically puts you on the same level as a Wizard anyways (I remember seeing somewhere that advantage basically grants a +5 on average to the check). Whereas if you are a Wizard spell trying to identify something like Cure Wounds, I would probably grant disadvantage as this is not a spell that Wizards can learn (I am sure there is some special subclass or feat or yada yada but in general).
I do think I would grant the arcana check for free as part of casting the counterspell.
To build on everything that's been said, here are the rules I now use:
Identifying a spell being cast does not require your reaction.
You use your passive Intelligence (Arcana) score to identify a spell being cast.
The DC is 10 + the spell's level.
You have -5 if the spell is of a higher level than you can cast, or -10 if it's of a higher tier than you can cast.
You get +5 if the spell is on your class' spell list. You get another +5 if you have it prepared and another +5 if the caster is the same spellcasting class as you.
If you have the spell prepared and the caster is the same spellcasting class as you (if you have multiple spellcasting classes, use the one you have the spell from), you automatically identify it.
If the plot says there's no way you could possibly know of the spell--but doesn't require that you not know of it--you can roll a d20. On a 20, the plot was mistaken. On a 1, you just spent your reaction trying to figure out what the spell was.
I may need to increase the base DC. With luck, I'll get to playtest it sometime.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Personally, I think a lot of this is going to come down to how individuals run games. As in, I don't sit down and say "Hey, this spell caster is pointing his rod at the group (pause for inevitable sex joke), does anyone want to cast an Interrupt? I mean, Counter?" No, I immediately move to describing the fireball launching and start rolling dice. If a player wants to counterspell, or use Protective FS, or some other reaction, they jump in whenever they want.
I play a lot of games online, and the game just doesn't flow well if you try to keep things hidden until the very last second. Now, if someone was trying to HIDE their attack or something? That's a different matter. But regularly? Not so much. In my opinion, the golden rule here is KISS.
How does this function in combat? Do I have to take the Ready Action action every turn I use counterspell??
No, you have to use a Reaction, which is an extra action you can take in response to a trigger. In the case of counterspell, the trigger is the "cast spell" of another creature.
Also note that by default you don't know which spell is being cast or at what level.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Since XGtE released we do have rules for identifying spells being cast. They can be found under the 'Identifying a Spell' section of XGtE p.85.
To sum it up, a PC can use it's reaction (or an action if applicable) to make an Intelligence(Arcana) check against a DC of 15 + spell level. If the spell is on your class' spell list, the check is made with advantage.
Note that since identifying the spell consumes your reaction, you can't both identify and counterspell. You can conceivably cooperate with your party though. One person can identify it and shout out "Fireball!" and another party member can counterspell it. Crawford agrees with this interpretation btw. I also like that it gives a benefit for more that one person to invest in Arcana.
For the OP:
On your turn you have movement, an action and a possible bonus action. You also have a reaction you can take once per round (resetting at the start of your turn), which can also be used outside your turn for things like attacks of opportunity, abilities that state they use a reaction, or spells that have a casting time of 'one reaction, which you take when blah blah...'. Examples would be Shield or Counterspell.
DnDBeyond Tooltip Syntax
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It wasn't RAW until Xanathar's Guide - you cover why yourself when you say there are no rules in the core books for identifying spells. That means both that the book doesn't say you automatically recognize spells being cast, and that the book doesn't say you don't automatically recognize spells being cast. A truth which allowed DMs that weren't already sure how they would rule to have thoughts like "Well, other things in the system are pretty much set up so that players don't risk wasting limited resources, so I'll go with that approach here too." and for DM's like me that are sure that making limited resources feel like they can be wasted makes players avoid using them for whatever it is that they can feel wasted on to not be contradicted by the rules.
I cannot argue that it wasn't RAI, but I can say that the intent of such a rule is misguided at best.
Potency does not inherently need to be a factor. Consistency of attitude of the rules is plenty reason to rule as I do, rather than as the official rules do.
Only for certain actions available to certain enemies, and with the added cost of a spell slot. Overstating the circumstances in which the option even matters while understating the cost is unhelpful to discussion.
Legendary Resistance already can't guard against a variety of things, so it really isn't impressive at all that something can go unaffected by Legendary Resistance - literally any attack roll or opposed ability check (2 of the 3 main types of rolls in the game) has the same capability.
If you don't know what is being cast, that is absolutely "firing blind". You don't know what odds you have of success at counterspelling, and you have no idea if you actually care enough to stop the spell in question - i.e. a person may not feel like spending a 3rd level spell slot on casting counterspell is worth it against an enemy casting a 4th or higher level spell because of the check required to make it actually work, or they may not want to spend a higher level spell slot than 3rd because it's a 3rd or lower level spell they are actually looking at counterspelling, and a person may not feel like counterspelling something like healing or a buff spell being cast by their enemy because they'd rather save their limited counterspelling attempts for things like big damage spells and condition-inflicting spells, but they are being made to decide what level to cast counterspell at if casting it at all without any of that information.It's like having to pick which potential melee target you are going to make an attack roll against without being given any description of the target beyond "there is a creature in front of you."
And, of no surprise I am sure, I also encourage everyone to DM with enough transparency that even if they don't go full-bore and let players know die roll results, they at least let them know when their limited resources are actually worth being spent.It is, in my experience, the difference maker between players viewing a spell like shield or counterspell as being worth having and using, or viewing such spells as resource-wasting risks not worth ever bothering with.
AaronOfBarbaria,
I can't hit "Like" on your post enough. Literally all of your points.
I find the new interpretation of Counterspell to be very troubling.
Mike Mearls has already stated the *intent* behind Shield is that it's never wasted. I know InquisitiveCoder will say "His tweets aren't actual rules", but he's an important member of the D&D Dev team so there are fewer better people (aside from Jeremy Crawford) to give a clearer picture of what the team intends for the game. That intent is what shapes the core rules of the game.
Almost every game I've played in is open rolling for player and GM. This makes everyone very comfortable, because no matter how the dice fall they fall.
I will say in a game where I could waste a 1st lvl spell on Shield, I won't memorize Shield. I have better uses of my limited resources.
It is the same reason that when I take the Lucky feat I always save 1 re-roll for Crits. When I hear "The creature crits you" there is always a spare "nope, reroll that... I'm feeling Lucky tonight." I've also had that GM reroll a 20 and my response is always "It is the will of the dice Gods."
This rule creates a trouble situation when it benefits the players and GM to be as secretive as possible. Player don't say "I cast magic missile" or "I cast a cantrip". Because now they need to say "I can a spell, do you dispel?"
It was always RAW. The rules of the game are in the core books. Everything else is optional. It'll still be RAW when another big book of player and DM options comes out.
That's my point: it's up to the DM. As a player, you should assume the most strict interpretation of the rules until you know the DM's rules. You wouldn't plan a new character around multiclassing without asking the DM if they allow multiclassing.
"In our asymmetrical, exceptions-based game, things are designed according to their own purpose, not in order to achieve arbitrary symmetries."
"Not helpful to compare a limitless ability (Sneak Attack) to limited ones (Divine Smite and Channel Divinity)"
If everyone at your table has fun the way you run things, that's all that matters. But any similarities between unrelated exceptional game features are incidental. Potency, on the other hand, is a very real design consideration. So, you know...caveat emptor if you diregard it.
That certain action is almost always the most potent option a monster has, and the monster's going to lose a spell slot too if you succeed so that's a wash. Unlike players, the monster is going to cease to exist in 5-8 rounds and has very little reason to pull its punches.
An attack roll or ability check will very rarely disintegrate you, paralyze you, or otherwise take you out of the fight. The whole point of Legendary Resistance is that it's a get-out-of-jail-free card against some of the nastiest effects in the game that can trivialize a fight against a single creature.
That's a fair trade-off for having a one-size-fits-all solution to enemy spellcasting. More often than not, the monster's going to be picking something you want to stop; on any given turn they should be trying to pick the most advantageous action.
Trying to bait out counterspells with low level spells is a losing strategy for monsters, and if the goal is to get players to burn spell slots, a DM can do that easily in other ways.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Might I suggest a middle path? I imagine if an experienced wizard saw an apprentice wizard casting magic missile she would know instantly what was happening, while the apprentice would struggle to tell the difference between a Teleport and a Finger of Death until it was too late. How to replicate this without too much effort? I suggest a sort of 'Passive Arcana'. Same calculation as perception, 10 + Int (Arcana) modifier. Then the DC to identify a spell is as per Xanathar 15 + level, with advantage applying if the caster shares your class type (advantage in passive situations is +5). So, an experienced wizard might easily have a passive Arcana of 18 - allowing her to instinctively recognise wizard spells up to level 7 and other spells up to level 2. Perhaps add that you can never auto-recognise a spell above a level you can cast.
Now the DM can maintain a simple enough table of which spell levels the party can recognise without effort and can either say: "The cultist casts Healing Word" or "The Necromancer traces an eldrich sign you don't recognise".
Reduces the number of rolls, allows some knowledge to avoid wasting spell slots, keeps some mystery and ominous danger from unknown spells, gives an advantage when dealing with spellcasters of your own kind while leaving you in the dark against unfamiliar magics.
No, that's nonsense. A thing that isn't actually written cannot possibly be the rules as written. There is zero text within the player's handbook, even post errata as far as I am aware, that says no one knows what spell is being cast, or at which level, by merely seeing the spell being cast.
Same as there is zero text within the player's handbook that says everyone always knows what spell is being cast, and at which level, by merely seeing the spell being cast.
The argument you make here is one that results in players not taking or using counterspell though, because it is objectively worth picking even if you use the official (optional) spell identification rules because having some chance at stopping things like heavy damage, "instant" death, or severe debilitation (like domination) spells is worth it - but just like witch bolt looks cool at a glance, counterspell when you have to commit to casting it when you have no idea what chance it has of working looks like a really bad choice to make.
My findings differ. I used to adhere to all of the "you don't get to know because you are a player"-isms of D&D, and I have changed to being entirely transparent about all rules information (i.e. I won't tell the players what plot twists are in store or other details that vary from story to story, but I will let them know literally anything that is game rules or game rules related, including the odds of success for any particular declared action). The results I have had include zero negatives so far, numerous thanks for "not doing what other DMs do", and a clear improvement in the areas of player enjoyment of game play, player knowledge of rules, and my own level of knowledge of what my players' preferences for all things related to the game play experience are.
This is a non sequitur. Trying to gain mechanical advantage over the DM has absolutely nothing to do with anything we've been talking about.Sorry, but I don't see it. It's only ever a bad choice if the monster casts something that would have absolutely no benefit (like trying to cast Hold Person on a wild shaped druid.) Otherwise, voiding a monster's action is never a bad move, much less when it's not costing you your own. The more optimal the spell is for the monster, the more optimal counterspell is for the player, and the less likely they are to have a better option. If you play your spellcasting monsters seriously sub-optimally, does it really matter if the players are making optimal choices?
It's also really good insurance. Few spells can avert a TPK or at least a player death the way counterspell can. (Mass Healing Word and Death Ward are the other stand-outs for me in that department.) Even if it only averts disaster once throughout the course of a campaign, that's still worth having.
The difference between being strict or generous with spell identification is the difference between a great spell and an amazing spell. Either way, you want it. I'm currently running Curse of Strahd and I've seen my players seriously impair Strahd's ability to hurt them just by having Counterspell.
That was in response to FullMetalBunny.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Players ask for information during combat all the time, and sometimes it is reasonable to ask them to make a check to see if they can figure out what they want to know, and I don't think it needs to take up a reaction. I don't think it hampers game flow to ask for an Arcana check to identify a spell while it's being cast. If I know a player has counterspell in their arsenal I will give them a brief opportunity to identify the spell and then decide if they want to cast counterspell. It might go something like:
DM: the guy with the pointy hat begins to cast a spell...(slight pause, and at this point the player would have to jump in...)
Player: What is he casting?
DM: Make an Arcana check. [using my homebrew specific proficiency rules it would be an Arcana (Spellcraft) check, but that's beside the point]
Player: (rolls 14)
DM: It's an evocation spell, but something more powerful than you could cast.
Player: I cast counterspell.
If the player doesn't jump in, and I've already described the spell and its effects, then sorry, it's too late to cast it. I make it clear to my players that they need to be on the ball if they want use their reactions. I will allow one Perception, Insight or Intelligence check to be made on their turn without taking up any actions, reactions or bonus actions, however (within reason)
In that example I didn't tell them outright what spell it is, because I think that should depend on level, class etc. If it's a spell they already know being cast by the same class then they would know automatically without a check. If it is a different spell by someone of the same class, but still of a level the character could cast, then I'd grant them Advantage on the check. If it was of a higher level, then no Advantage and I'd probably only let them know the school and that it is a higher level. If it's a different class but of a comparable level, then again no Advantage and I'd probably just let them know the school of magic. If it was a different class and of a higher level than the character could cast, then I would give Disadvantage to the check. I don't know, I'm just coming up with this on the spot, but I think that's exactly the role of the DM - to take the rules as written and apply them dynamically to different situations. That's why I love the Advantage/Disadvantage system, since it provides a very easy way to adjust for different scenarios.
I will play devil's advocate here, Wizards spend their lives studying magic to understand it. Sorcerers and Warlocks use an innate power or power bargained for to cast their spells. Even the Sorcerers metamagic to me seems more like them pushing themselves harder, investing more of their will, or finding by pure instinct that if they move their hands a little faster the spell is quickened. So identifying a spell being cast, in the heat of battle, purely based on your knowledge of the Arcane seems appropriately harder for Sorcerers and Warlocks, and less so for Wizards.
I however do like the idea that if the spell is on your spell list, you would get advantage to this check which basically puts you on the same level as a Wizard anyways (I remember seeing somewhere that advantage basically grants a +5 on average to the check). Whereas if you are a Wizard spell trying to identify something like Cure Wounds, I would probably grant disadvantage as this is not a spell that Wizards can learn (I am sure there is some special subclass or feat or yada yada but in general).
I do think I would grant the arcana check for free as part of casting the counterspell.
To build on everything that's been said, here are the rules I now use:
I may need to increase the base DC. With luck, I'll get to playtest it sometime.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Personally, I think a lot of this is going to come down to how individuals run games. As in, I don't sit down and say "Hey, this spell caster is pointing his rod at the group (pause for inevitable sex joke), does anyone want to cast an Interrupt? I mean, Counter?" No, I immediately move to describing the fireball launching and start rolling dice. If a player wants to counterspell, or use Protective FS, or some other reaction, they jump in whenever they want.
I play a lot of games online, and the game just doesn't flow well if you try to keep things hidden until the very last second. Now, if someone was trying to HIDE their attack or something? That's a different matter. But regularly? Not so much. In my opinion, the golden rule here is KISS.