If I remember correctly, innate casting and casting spells from magic items do not require any components and thus means they are essentially cast without anyone being able to tell who is casting the spell. With that being said, another caster wouldn't be able to use counterspell on the innate caster, correct?
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
I don’t think that’s true. The SAC says: “If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast.” That definitely suggests that if said spell does have a material component, the casting is perceptible.
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
I don’t think that’s true. The SAC says: “If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast.” That definitely suggests that if said spell does have a material component, the casting is perceptible.
I think it might be better to say that a spell with only a material component MAY be perceptible. It is up to the DM.
Depending on the material component the caster may only have to touch it. For example, a caster could touch a spell casting focus in their pocket and an observer would not be able to tell that a spell was being cast. On the other hand, if a caster obviously reaches into their component pouch and pulls something out then an observer might be able to tell a spell is being cast though it is also possible that the creature is just pulling something out of their pouch. So whether a spell being cast with only a material component is perceptible or not is pretty much up to the DM.
P.S. Some of the innate spell casting abilities don't mention components - in which case all the usual ones would be required - others specify that it can be done without material components - in this case the other components are still required and the innate spellcasting could be counterspelled. If an ability to cast a spell is described as not needing any components then the ability could not be counterspelled.
Examples: Tiefling
"Infernal Legacy. You know the thaumaturgy cantrip. Once you reach 3rd level, you can cast the hellish rebuke spell once per day as a 2nd-level spell. Once you reach 5th level, you can also cast the darkness spell once per day. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells."
These spells require all the normal components.
"Svirfneblin Magic Prerequisite: Gnome (deep gnome) You have inherited the innate spellcasting ability of your ancestors. This ability allows you to cast nondetection on yourself at will, without needing a material component. You can also cast each of the following spells once with this ability: blindness/deafness, blur, and disguise self. You regain the ability to cast these spells when you finish a long rest. Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for these spells."
In this example from SCAG, a deep gnome can cast nondetection at will without requiring a material component (other components still required) while the other spells still require all the normal components.
P.P.S. Spells from items specifically indicate that they require no components unless the item indicates otherwise. In these cases the spell from the item could not be counterspelled.
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
I don’t think that’s true. The SAC says: “If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast.” That definitely suggests that if said spell does have a material component, the casting is perceptible.
With all respect, I don't think this example is applicable. Subtle Spell removes the requirement for verbal and somatic components for casting the spell. Innate spall casting ability only removes (or may only remove, DM's choice) the requirement for material components, not verbal or somatic components. A creature with an innate ability to cast Fireball might still gesticulate and voice the requirements of the spell, making it quite perceptible and, by definition, subject to Counterspell, given the context of this forum.
The question could bring other interesting questions. If innate spell casting ignores all 'component' requirements of casting, what other requirements are suspended? The requirement to see a target? The required amount of time to cast the innate spell? The requirement that a target understand or speak a language to take affect? Can innate spell casters cast under the influence of a Hold Person spell? Feeblemind? Within the effects of a Silence spell, provided the attempted spell, as authored, requires a verbal component? Slippery slopes.
I tend to follow this thread of logic, as nothing in the description of innate spell casting in the Monster Manual speaks to removing the requirements of spell casting, unless the creature description specifically states otherwise.
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
I don’t think that’s true. The SAC says: “If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast.” That definitely suggests that if said spell does have a material component, the casting is perceptible.
With all respect, I don't think this example is applicable. Subtle Spell removes the requirement for verbal and somatic components for casting the spell. Innate spall casting ability only removes (or may only remove, DM's choice) the requirement for material components, not verbal or somatic components. A creature with an innate ability to cast Fireball might still gesticulate and voice the requirements of the spell, making it quite perceptible and, by definition, subject to Counterspell, given the context of this forum.
The question could bring other interesting questions. If innate spell casting ignores all 'component' requirements of casting, what other requirements are suspended? The requirement to see a target? The required amount of time to cast the innate spell? The requirement that a target understand or speak a language to take affect? Can innate spell casters cast under the influence of a Hold Person spell? Feeblemind? Within the effects of a Silence spell, provided the attempted spell, as authored, requires a verbal component? Slippery slopes.
I tend to follow this thread of logic, as nothing in the description of innate spell casting in the Monster Manual speaks to removing the requirements of spell casting, unless the creature description specifically states otherwise.
The Subtle Spell example was arguing against the point above it - it was arguing that, as hinted in the Subtle Spell rules, a spell being cast that uses any components at all (verbal, Somatic or material) is considered a visible/noticeable casting and can thus be countered.
A spell cannot be countered if the caster cannot be seen at all (invisible perhaps) or if the spell has no components whatsoever. Many psionic-type abilities or casting from most magic objects specify that no components are needed, and other abilities remove the need for some components but not others. If all components for a given spell are bypassed by relevant abilities then the spell cannot be noticed during casting and cannot be countered.
But each innate casting feature will tell you which components it overrides if any. It will tell you if any spell slots or charges are used or not. There is nothing that is inherently true about innate casting except what each feature says.
This situation is not a slippery slope. All of the questions asked have answers. Hold Person applies the Incapacitated condition (via Petrified) which means you can't take any actions which means you can't cast any spells at all. Feeblemind says the target can't cast spells, so they can't cast spells. And any ability which bypasses the verbal component can indeed allow a verbal spell to be successfully cast within a Silence spell (or while gagged). Likewise bypassing the Somatic components allow you to cast such spells while tied up, and bypassing the material components to carry while separated from focus and material supplies. An psionic caster or a subtle sorcerer can be a very slippery thing to keep tied down, and that is very much the point of them...
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
I don’t think that’s true. The SAC says: “If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast.” That definitely suggests that if said spell does have a material component, the casting is perceptible.
With all respect, I don't think this example is applicable. Subtle Spell removes the requirement for verbal and somatic components for casting the spell. Innate spall casting ability only removes (or may only remove, DM's choice) the requirement for material components, not verbal or somatic components. A creature with an innate ability to cast Fireball might still gesticulate and voice the requirements of the spell, making it quite perceptible and, by definition, subject to Counterspell, given the context of this forum.
The question could bring other interesting questions. If innate spell casting ignores all 'component' requirements of casting, what other requirements are suspended? The requirement to see a target? The required amount of time to cast the innate spell? The requirement that a target understand or speak a language to take affect? Can innate spell casters cast under the influence of a Hold Person spell? Feeblemind? Within the effects of a Silence spell, provided the attempted spell, as authored, requires a verbal component? Slippery slopes.
I tend to follow this thread of logic, as nothing in the description of innate spell casting in the Monster Manual speaks to removing the requirements of spell casting, unless the creature description specifically states otherwise.
The Subtle Spell example was arguing against the point above it - it was arguing that, as hinted in the Subtle Spell rules, a spell being cast that uses any components at all (verbal, Somatic or material) is considered a visible/noticeable casting and can thus be countered.
A spell cannot be countered if the caster cannot be seen at all (invisible perhaps) or if the spell has no components whatsoever. Many psionic-type abilities or casting from most magic objects specify that no components are needed, and other abilities remove the need for some components but not others. If all components for a given spell are bypassed by relevant abilities then the spell cannot be noticed during casting and cannot be countered.
But each innate casting feature will tell you which components it overrides if any. It will tell you if any spell slots or charges are used or not. There is nothing that is inherently true about innate casting except what each feature says.
This situation is not a slippery slope. All of the questions asked have answers. Hold Person applies the Incapacitated condition (via Petrified) which means you can't take any actions which means you can't cast any spells at all. Feeblemind says the target can't cast spells, so they can't cast spells. And any ability which bypasses the verbal component can indeed allow a verbal spell to be successfully cast within a Silence spell (or while gagged). Likewise bypassing the Somatic components allow you to cast such spells while tied up, and bypassing the material components to carry while separated from focus and material supplies. An psionic caster or a subtle sorcerer can be a very slippery thing to keep tied down, and that is very much the point of them...
I'm glad the questions I posited have answers; it was the point of asking them to establish that innate spell casting, unless detailed differently, operates within the same framework as non-innate spell casting. I agree with your assessment of Hold Person and Feeblemind, again posited to assert consistency between innate and non-innate casting. Most of the examples you use in your argument align with those I would use.
I do not agree with Invisibility, or being unseen, being a proof against Counterspell, as verbal components can be heard, and the definition of the aforementioned abjuration does not specify or require line of sight on a caster to foil the attempt. In fact, the language defining Counterspell states nothing about components or awareness of spell casting at all to be effective; only that the spell to be countered has to be within range, and that it is being cast, and that you have a reaction to cast it. Our most educated forum would agree that the authoring of most spells is very specific with regard to the concept of 'that you can see'. Counterspell doesn't use that language; it does not state 'You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell that you can see (perceive)'. I believe 'unperceived' was the core assertion of this thread. It's magic, baby! Perhaps the counter-speller has a preternatural sense that a spell within range is being cast, and thus a candidate for countering.
In short, innate ability is not a work around for the use of components, again, unless the ability states otherwise. Perception of a spell being cast is not a requirement for a Counterspell to be effective, any more than a monk requires perception to deflect missiles or a battle master fighter parrying a blow; in those cases the trigger is being hit, not perceiving the hitter. For Counterspell, the trigger is the casting of a spell. In each case, the monk, fighter and abjurer can be in complete and total darkness and silence and still do their thing. The other 5e resources likely also have class or racial (heritage? bloodline?) abilities that trigger under various circumstances, perception or awareness of their environment not being one of them.
I think you're skipping the language found in the components footer of Counterspell... unless I'm misunderstanding your position. The trigger is not the casting of a spell, it is specifically seeing a creature casting a spell.
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.
* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Now, I'll grant: a lot of spells that rely on vision would have just said "you attempt to interrupt a creature you can see in the process of casting a spell...", and it's unusual that Counterspell doesn't do that. The door is possibly left cracked: does this mean that if you can't see the creature, but can see the spell being cast (objects moving? lights and energies gathering?), is that enough to see the "creature casting a spell" phenomenon, even if you can't see the "creature" entity? There's room for some hair splitting there I suppose. 'Gavagai.'
But when an invisible creature is casting a spell that doesn't have a visible phenomenon accompanying it, I don't believe you have a sufficient trigger to allow you to take a Reaction to cast Counterspell... even if you otherwise perceive the creature or the casting using a sense other than sight (hearing, etc.).
I do not agree with Invisibility, or being unseen, being a proof against Counterspell, as verbal components can be heard, and the definition of the aforementioned abjuration does not specify or require line of sight on a caster to foil the attempt. In fact, the language defining Counterspell states nothing about components or awareness of spell casting at all to be effective; only that the spell to be countered has to be within range, and that it is being cast, and that you have a reaction to cast it. Our most educated forum would agree that the authoring of most spells is very specific with regard to the concept of 'that you can see'. Counterspell doesn't use that language; it does not state 'You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell that you can see (perceive)'. I believe 'unperceived' was the core assertion of this thread. It's magic, baby! Perhaps the counter-speller has a preternatural sense that a spell within range is being cast, and thus a candidate for countering.
...
Agree with most of your points here, just disagree with the above. Counterspell does indeed use language requiring sight, though it is hidden away in the asterisked trigger for the reaction of its casting: "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell".
This means you gain immunity to countering either by your spell casting being unnoticeable (no components), or by being invisible yourself.
Personally I would probably still allow an attempt to counter a spell you can hear being cast by an invisible enemy, with some challenge roll to locate them correctly via perception or something - for the drama...
I do not agree with Invisibility, or being unseen, being a proof against Counterspell, as verbal components can be heard, and the definition of the aforementioned abjuration does not specify or require line of sight on a caster to foil the attempt. In fact, the language defining Counterspell states nothing about components or awareness of spell casting at all to be effective; only that the spell to be countered has to be within range, and that it is being cast, and that you have a reaction to cast it. Our most educated forum would agree that the authoring of most spells is very specific with regard to the concept of 'that you can see'. Counterspell doesn't use that language; it does not state 'You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell that you can see (perceive)'. I believe 'unperceived' was the core assertion of this thread. It's magic, baby! Perhaps the counter-speller has a preternatural sense that a spell within range is being cast, and thus a candidate for countering.
...
Agree with most of your points here, just disagree with the above. Counterspell does indeed use language requiring sight, though it is hidden away in the asterisked trigger for the reaction of its casting: "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell".
This means you gain immunity to countering either by your spell casting being unnoticeable (no components), or by being invisible yourself.
Personally I would probably still allow an attempt to counter a spell you can hear being cast by an invisible enemy, with some challenge roll to locate them correctly via perception or something - for the drama...
Ah yes, to my embarrassment I see the note. The forum has served it's purpose!
May spells from magical items be Counterspelled? It sounds like folks here say "No."
Yes, I've heard this one before. It is an example of a Jeremy tweet that disagrees with another Jeremy tweet.
It is established that removing all components makes a spell casting unnoticeable - and this is how subtle spell or psionic casting can be rendered uncounterable. Then in the general rules for casting spells from magic items it is stated that such spells require no components unless otherwise specified - and almost zero magic objects specify that normal or additional components are required for the casting of their spells.
A justification I think I read somewhere is that, in casting a spell from a magic object, the object *becomes* the Material component for that spell. Like you are visibly waving the wand Harry-Potter-style in order to cause the Fireball to shoot out, so someone seeing the wand waving could trigger their Counterspell. It's a sensible enough interpretation, but not very well supported by much text.
It is the interpretation I would use in my games, unless the majority of players strongly preferred uncounterable wands. Just apply the same ruling to players and wand-carrying monsters and have fun.
That's one approach, but involves houseruling a solution (magic items are material components for spells that they allow you to cast without components) which only becomes necessary to resolve another non-core rule variant (that spells without components aren't perceptible in the first place).
I'd prefer the simpler approach, of just not using any unwritten rules from JC tweets in the first place/choosing not to use the Xanathar's optional rule variant. There are plenty of spells that do have components that I don't feel should be detectible (or at least, should be able to be performed stealthily), like Charm Person. And there's others with no components that I feel should be detectible, like a Fireball cast from a Wand of Fireballs. Rather than using a rule variant that makes that a problem in both directions, and then houseruling your way out of it, it seems fine to just stop at the core rules and let it be an un-specified system that the DM can arbitrate as they find reasonable case by case.
My problem right now is after I picked Counterspell the DM learned there is no roll to determine if it works (up to level 3) and so now it seems he has decided to limit it in other ways. I'll just have to chalk it up to experience and remember that next time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
My problem right now is after I picked Counterspell the DM learned there is no roll to determine if it works (up to level 3) and so now it seems he has decided to limit it in other ways. I'll just have to chalk it up to experience and remember that next time.
Ugh. That sucks man - I don’t know what’s wrong with it working as it’s written, it sounds like the DM just isn’t comfortable with spellcasting and rules.
I was wondering about innate spellcasting myself, and came across this on Sage Advice:
@GSLLC@JeremyECrawford But Medusa’s gaze. “Magical” but not a spell, so can’t be counterspelled, right? Drow innate spell could be. Correct – ability must boil down to “creature casts X” where X is a spell.
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
Nowhere in the RAW does it say that. You're simply suggesting a table rule, not a D & D rule.
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
Nowhere in the RAW does it say that. You're simply suggesting a table rule, not a D & D rule.
You are very very very late to the party... this thread is from 2020/21
2014 Counterspell says "1 reaction*" "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell" - including Sage Advice "seeing a creature casting" needs something from spellcasting to be perceived.
2024 Counterspell is even more specific "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components"
With Voras' permission, I'd also like to share this advice from XGtE:
Perceiving a Caster at Work
Many spells create obvious effects: explosions of fire, walls of ice, teleportation, and the like. Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them. As noted in the Player's Handbook, you normally don't know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect.
But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn't matter for the purposes of perception, whether it's an object specified in the spell's description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.
If the need for a spell's components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer's Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it's normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.
If I remember correctly, innate casting and casting spells from magic items do not require any components and thus means they are essentially cast without anyone being able to tell who is casting the spell. With that being said, another caster wouldn't be able to use counterspell on the innate caster, correct?
For you to Counterspell a spell, you must be able to perceive it being cast.
In order to perceive a spell being cast, it must have a verbal component for you to hear, or a somatic component for you to see (touching a material component isn't considered something you can distinctly perceive as casting a spell)
If an innate spellcasting feature doesn't require Verbal or Somatic components, it can't be perceived and thus can't be Counterspelled.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I don’t think that’s true. The SAC says: “If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast.” That definitely suggests that if said spell does have a material component, the casting is perceptible.
I think it might be better to say that a spell with only a material component MAY be perceptible. It is up to the DM.
Depending on the material component the caster may only have to touch it. For example, a caster could touch a spell casting focus in their pocket and an observer would not be able to tell that a spell was being cast. On the other hand, if a caster obviously reaches into their component pouch and pulls something out then an observer might be able to tell a spell is being cast though it is also possible that the creature is just pulling something out of their pouch. So whether a spell being cast with only a material component is perceptible or not is pretty much up to the DM.
P.S. Some of the innate spell casting abilities don't mention components - in which case all the usual ones would be required - others specify that it can be done without material components - in this case the other components are still required and the innate spellcasting could be counterspelled. If an ability to cast a spell is described as not needing any components then the ability could not be counterspelled.
Examples: Tiefling
"Infernal Legacy. You know the thaumaturgy cantrip. Once you reach 3rd level, you can cast the hellish rebuke spell once per day as a 2nd-level spell. Once you reach 5th level, you can also cast the darkness spell once per day. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells."
These spells require all the normal components.
"Svirfneblin Magic
Prerequisite: Gnome (deep gnome)
You have inherited the innate spellcasting ability of your ancestors. This ability allows you to cast nondetection on yourself at will, without needing a material component. You can also cast each of the following spells once with this ability: blindness/deafness, blur, and disguise self. You regain the ability to cast these spells when you finish a long rest. Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for these spells."
In this example from SCAG, a deep gnome can cast nondetection at will without requiring a material component (other components still required) while the other spells still require all the normal components.
P.P.S. Spells from items specifically indicate that they require no components unless the item indicates otherwise. In these cases the spell from the item could not be counterspelled.
With all respect, I don't think this example is applicable. Subtle Spell removes the requirement for verbal and somatic components for casting the spell. Innate spall casting ability only removes (or may only remove, DM's choice) the requirement for material components, not verbal or somatic components. A creature with an innate ability to cast Fireball might still gesticulate and voice the requirements of the spell, making it quite perceptible and, by definition, subject to Counterspell, given the context of this forum.
The question could bring other interesting questions. If innate spell casting ignores all 'component' requirements of casting, what other requirements are suspended? The requirement to see a target? The required amount of time to cast the innate spell? The requirement that a target understand or speak a language to take affect? Can innate spell casters cast under the influence of a Hold Person spell? Feeblemind? Within the effects of a Silence spell, provided the attempted spell, as authored, requires a verbal component? Slippery slopes.
I tend to follow this thread of logic, as nothing in the description of innate spell casting in the Monster Manual speaks to removing the requirements of spell casting, unless the creature description specifically states otherwise.
The Subtle Spell example was arguing against the point above it - it was arguing that, as hinted in the Subtle Spell rules, a spell being cast that uses any components at all (verbal, Somatic or material) is considered a visible/noticeable casting and can thus be countered.
A spell cannot be countered if the caster cannot be seen at all (invisible perhaps) or if the spell has no components whatsoever. Many psionic-type abilities or casting from most magic objects specify that no components are needed, and other abilities remove the need for some components but not others. If all components for a given spell are bypassed by relevant abilities then the spell cannot be noticed during casting and cannot be countered.
But each innate casting feature will tell you which components it overrides if any. It will tell you if any spell slots or charges are used or not. There is nothing that is inherently true about innate casting except what each feature says.
This situation is not a slippery slope. All of the questions asked have answers. Hold Person applies the Incapacitated condition (via Petrified) which means you can't take any actions which means you can't cast any spells at all. Feeblemind says the target can't cast spells, so they can't cast spells. And any ability which bypasses the verbal component can indeed allow a verbal spell to be successfully cast within a Silence spell (or while gagged). Likewise bypassing the Somatic components allow you to cast such spells while tied up, and bypassing the material components to carry while separated from focus and material supplies. An psionic caster or a subtle sorcerer can be a very slippery thing to keep tied down, and that is very much the point of them...
I'm glad the questions I posited have answers; it was the point of asking them to establish that innate spell casting, unless detailed differently, operates within the same framework as non-innate spell casting. I agree with your assessment of Hold Person and Feeblemind, again posited to assert consistency between innate and non-innate casting. Most of the examples you use in your argument align with those I would use.
I do not agree with Invisibility, or being unseen, being a proof against Counterspell, as verbal components can be heard, and the definition of the aforementioned abjuration does not specify or require line of sight on a caster to foil the attempt. In fact, the language defining Counterspell states nothing about components or awareness of spell casting at all to be effective; only that the spell to be countered has to be within range, and that it is being cast, and that you have a reaction to cast it. Our most educated forum would agree that the authoring of most spells is very specific with regard to the concept of 'that you can see'. Counterspell doesn't use that language; it does not state 'You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell that you can see (perceive)'. I believe 'unperceived' was the core assertion of this thread. It's magic, baby! Perhaps the counter-speller has a preternatural sense that a spell within range is being cast, and thus a candidate for countering.
In short, innate ability is not a work around for the use of components, again, unless the ability states otherwise. Perception of a spell being cast is not a requirement for a Counterspell to be effective, any more than a monk requires perception to deflect missiles or a battle master fighter parrying a blow; in those cases the trigger is being hit, not perceiving the hitter. For Counterspell, the trigger is the casting of a spell. In each case, the monk, fighter and abjurer can be in complete and total darkness and silence and still do their thing. The other 5e resources likely also have class or racial (heritage? bloodline?) abilities that trigger under various circumstances, perception or awareness of their environment not being one of them.
The advice I was given in this thread indicated that you may Counterspell a spell from a wand (of fireballs).
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/98184-counterspell-reaction-economy?page=2
May spells from magical items be Counterspelled? It sounds like folks here say "No."
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I think you're skipping the language found in the components footer of Counterspell... unless I'm misunderstanding your position. The trigger is not the casting of a spell, it is specifically seeing a creature casting a spell.
Now, I'll grant: a lot of spells that rely on vision would have just said "you attempt to interrupt a creature you can see in the process of casting a spell...", and it's unusual that Counterspell doesn't do that. The door is possibly left cracked: does this mean that if you can't see the creature, but can see the spell being cast (objects moving? lights and energies gathering?), is that enough to see the "creature casting a spell" phenomenon, even if you can't see the "creature" entity? There's room for some hair splitting there I suppose. 'Gavagai.'
But when an invisible creature is casting a spell that doesn't have a visible phenomenon accompanying it, I don't believe you have a sufficient trigger to allow you to take a Reaction to cast Counterspell... even if you otherwise perceive the creature or the casting using a sense other than sight (hearing, etc.).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Agree with most of your points here, just disagree with the above. Counterspell does indeed use language requiring sight, though it is hidden away in the asterisked trigger for the reaction of its casting: "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell".
This means you gain immunity to countering either by your spell casting being unnoticeable (no components), or by being invisible yourself.
Personally I would probably still allow an attempt to counter a spell you can hear being cast by an invisible enemy, with some challenge roll to locate them correctly via perception or something - for the drama...
Ah yes, to my embarrassment I see the note. The forum has served it's purpose!
Yes, I've heard this one before. It is an example of a Jeremy tweet that disagrees with another Jeremy tweet.
It is established that removing all components makes a spell casting unnoticeable - and this is how subtle spell or psionic casting can be rendered uncounterable. Then in the general rules for casting spells from magic items it is stated that such spells require no components unless otherwise specified - and almost zero magic objects specify that normal or additional components are required for the casting of their spells.
A justification I think I read somewhere is that, in casting a spell from a magic object, the object *becomes* the Material component for that spell. Like you are visibly waving the wand Harry-Potter-style in order to cause the Fireball to shoot out, so someone seeing the wand waving could trigger their Counterspell. It's a sensible enough interpretation, but not very well supported by much text.
It is the interpretation I would use in my games, unless the majority of players strongly preferred uncounterable wands. Just apply the same ruling to players and wand-carrying monsters and have fun.
That's one approach, but involves houseruling a solution (magic items are material components for spells that they allow you to cast without components) which only becomes necessary to resolve another non-core rule variant (that spells without components aren't perceptible in the first place).
I'd prefer the simpler approach, of just not using any unwritten rules from JC tweets in the first place/choosing not to use the Xanathar's optional rule variant. There are plenty of spells that do have components that I don't feel should be detectible (or at least, should be able to be performed stealthily), like Charm Person. And there's others with no components that I feel should be detectible, like a Fireball cast from a Wand of Fireballs. Rather than using a rule variant that makes that a problem in both directions, and then houseruling your way out of it, it seems fine to just stop at the core rules and let it be an un-specified system that the DM can arbitrate as they find reasonable case by case.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My problem right now is after I picked Counterspell the DM learned there is no roll to determine if it works (up to level 3) and so now it seems he has decided to limit it in other ways. I'll just have to chalk it up to experience and remember that next time.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Ugh. That sucks man - I don’t know what’s wrong with it working as it’s written, it sounds like the DM just isn’t comfortable with spellcasting and rules.
I was wondering about innate spellcasting myself, and came across this on Sage Advice:
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be listening to Rehn Stillnight.
Nowhere in the RAW does it say that. You're simply suggesting a table rule, not a D & D rule.
You are very very very late to the party... this thread is from 2020/21
2014 Counterspell says "1 reaction*" "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell" - including Sage Advice "seeing a creature casting" needs something from spellcasting to be perceived.
2024 Counterspell is even more specific "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components"
With Voras' permission, I'd also like to share this advice from XGtE:
Therefore, for spellcasting without components—such as via Magic Items or Mind Flayers—there is truly no means to be targeted by Counterspell?
In that case, to counter such component-less spells, it seems we must rely on Silvery Barbs, or even Temporal Shunt and Magic Mirror...