So, I just happened to read up in the rules a bit and came upon a, in my opinion, gamechanging rule (by RAW that is).
I'm sure everyone considers counterspell being one of the more powerful spells around, simply because of it's great usage to counter a spell being cast as a reaction.
However, here are the DMG rules for identifying a spell:
Identifying a Spell
Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.
If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren’t associated with any class when they’re cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.
This Intelligence (Arcana) check represents the fact that identifying a spell requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting. This is true even for a character whose spellcasting ability is Wisdom or Charisma. Being able to cast spells doesn’t by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells.
So, by RAW, you can't both identify what spell is being cast AND counterspell it at the same time. I mean, in a way it makes sense, either you spend time trying to figure out what spell is being cast, or you spend that time simply dispelling it. Spending a reaction to know what spell is being cast has it's uses, like figuring out someone just put a charm person on your ally, or some other spells with less obvious effects, but if you can't do it at the same time as you counterspell, it will seriously limit the effects of the counterspell. You don't know if you're about to stop the BBEG from casting the guidance cantrip or finger of death.
I'm not sure how I feel about it to be honest, I like the reasoning and it kinda makes sense it takes some effort to actually figure out what spell is being cast, since not everyone cast spells the same way (not even if it's the same spell). But other reaction spells like shield happen when you're hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell. So this would mean it's cast AFTER the spell or attack has begun, and you can see the effect of it (A sword or a few magic missiles coming right at you). Absorb elements is similar, it works after you take damage and absorbs it, meaning you must know that some kind of elemental attack is coming for you so you can absorb part of it.
Temporal Shunt (chronurgy magic) would have the same issues as counterspell, in that it is made when someone starts casting a spell or makes an attack roll.
So, it's basically, either identify the spell being cast or gamble that it's something extra horrible this particular turn and hope you didn't just counterspell a cantrip. Also have faith in your GM not swapping that successful dispel of a level 9 spell, into a level 2 spell and casting the level 9 next turn instead. (My GM wouldn't, but I've had GM's who would.)
You've actually quoted Xanathar's Guide to Everything (Page 85), not the DMG. But you're absolutely right - the power of Counterspell is supposed to be balanced by the gamble of not knowing whether the spell is worth countering, and to prevent mage encounters from devolving into a counterspell-fest. JC introduced these rules for that reason:
In Xanathar's, Identifying a spell requires an action or a reaction because it involves focused deduction; it's not automatic. Moreover, I didn't want combat to devolve into people identifying every spell. #DnD
- Jeremy Crawford, Twitter. 10.11.17
It intentionally doesn't work with counterspell. Counterspell is a sudden effort to break a spell. You're intended to have only enough time to cast it, not to carefully weigh whether the other caster's spell is worth breaking.
- Jeremy Crawford 10.11.17
I actually like this rule. It introduces a bit of mystery when a creature begins casting a spell, and gives those with Arcana the opportunity to shine. It also allows some tactical identification, where one player can use their reaction to identify a spell - while another fires off the appropriate counter.
Most DMs aren't going to say, "Ok, the wizard's casting a spell..." and then wait to see if someone wants to Counterspell. For every single spell. In every single encounter. It's just not practical and it's practically baiting the Counterspeller to spend all their slots on Counterspell. It also requires the PCs to use this same language in the off chance that an enemy is ready to counter them. Now you've slowed combat by 25% for one rule about one spell.
DMs just say "The wizard casts Fireball." So do players. The game works fine this way.
This is just one of those concepts that seems cool on paper, but just doesn't stand up well in actual play. If Counterspell gets out of hand, there are limitations to the spell that smart enemies can exploit. When the DM says "The wizard casts Fireball" and the players says "Well then I cast Counterspell" and then the DM says "Well ACKSHUALLY you didn't know it was Fireball" it just feels like BS.
How a rule feels at the table is important. And this one doesn't feel good. I'd bet by best dice that JC doesn't actually use this rule rigorously at his own table.
Most DMs aren't going to say, "Ok, the wizard's casting a spell..." and then wait to see if someone wants to Counterspell. For every single spell. In every single encounter. It's just not practical and it's practically baiting the Counterspeller to spend all their slots on Counterspell. It also requires the PCs to use this same language in the off chance that an enemy is ready to counter them. Now you've slowed combat by 25% for one rule about one spell.
My AL group actually does do this. It IS baiting counter, but we don't have to take it. And it takes less than a minute, so an hour long combat doesn't really notice.
I play with the house(?) rule that passive skills exist in all categories and passive Arcana is a thing. So, if you have +8 Arcana, your passive is 18, and therefore you can identify any spell level 3 or lower for free, without a reaction.
Like above, using this method takes no time at all. And makes for tactical counterspelling rather than “Level 9 spell = Level 9 counterspell”. Lots more decision making required now, on both sides. And it’s fun to see the wizard duel work.
DMs just say "The wizard casts Fireball." So do players. The game works fine this way.
This is just one of those concepts that seems cool on paper, but just doesn't stand up well in actual play. If Counterspell gets out of hand, there are limitations to the spell that smart enemies can exploit. When the DM says "The wizard casts Fireball" and the players says "Well then I cast Counterspell" and then the DM says "Well ACKSHUALLY you didn't know it was Fireball" it just feels like BS.
Works fine at our table, but mileage may vary. We're a fairly small group (4 players), and enemy mages are quite rare. And I also run a pretty narrative-heavy game.
I also never describe spells by their name. 'Fireball' to us is the out-of-game label to the spell effect. So I'll never say, 'The wizard casts fireball', I'll say 'The mage begins an incantation, and in a flash a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands, and with an evil grin he raises it towards Celedad, the halfling bard.'
Which gives plenty of time for necessary checks and counters. Would usually go something like:
DM: 'The mage begins to chant his incantation, and in a flash, a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands...' Player 1: 'Do I know what he's casting?' DM: 'Make an Arcana check ... [Roll] ... Yes, it's 'Fireball'... and with an evil grin, he raises his hand towards Celedad the halfling bard!' Player 2: 'I'll counter it!' DM: 'As the mage raises his hand, the wizard Arazul lifts his staff and yells a single word in draconic, and the bead of fire flashes brightly for a moment before disappearing in a crackle of arcane energy.'
It doesn't add much more time to the encounter - but adds a whole lot of narrative, tension and flavour to our game. It keeps magic something to be apprehensive about, gives our wizard narrative opportunities to be badass, and in our case, it's cool on paper - and even cooler when it plays out in game.
DMs just say "The wizard casts Fireball." So do players. The game works fine this way.
This is just one of those concepts that seems cool on paper, but just doesn't stand up well in actual play. If Counterspell gets out of hand, there are limitations to the spell that smart enemies can exploit. When the DM says "The wizard casts Fireball" and the players says "Well then I cast Counterspell" and then the DM says "Well ACKSHUALLY you didn't know it was Fireball" it just feels like BS.
Works fine at our table, but mileage may vary. We're a fairly small group (4 players), and enemy mages are quite rare. And I also run a pretty narrative-heavy game.
I also never describe spells by their name. 'Fireball' to us is the out-of-game label to the spell effect. So I'll never say, 'The wizard casts fireball', I'll say 'The mage begins an incantation, and in a flash a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands, and with an evil grin he raises it towards Celedad, the halfling bard.'
Which gives plenty of time for necessary checks and counters. Would usually go something like:
DM: 'The mage begins to chant his incantation, and in a flash, a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands...' Player 1: 'Do I know what he's casting?' DM: 'Make an Arcana check ... [Roll] ... Yes, it's 'Fireball'... and with an evil grin, he raises his hand towards Celedad the halfling bard!' Player 2: 'I'll counter it!' DM: 'As the mage raises his hand, the wizard Arazul lifts his staff and yells a single word in draconic, and the bead of fire flashes brightly for a moment before disappearing in a crackle of arcane energy.'
It doesn't add much more time to the encounter - but adds a whole lot of narrative, tension and flavour to our game. It keeps magic something to be apprehensive about, gives our wizard narrative opportunities to be badass, and in our case, it's cool on paper - and even cooler when it plays out in game.
To each his own, I suppose.
At my table, the issue with that would be that the player knows darn well what "a bead of fire bursting to life in his hands" means, so what does player 2 do if player 1 fails his check? Is he obligated not to have the character Counterspell just because he definitely would have done so if the check succeeded? There's tension here, but it's the weird metagamey kind that breaks immersion.
Yes - in fairness, I do introduce D&D to new players fairly frequently. For a more experienced group, I wouldn't be so obvious in my spell descriptions. That 'bead of fire bursting to life in his hand' would become 'the air around his hand begins to ripple with arcane energy as his spell takes shape' - or something similarly non-descript.
If Player 1 fails his check, then in-game he shouts that he doesn't know what the spell is. Player 2 can then decide whether to take the gamble.
The issues I take with the spell identification rule are that it is fairly inelegant, and to me reads so much like a rule built for metagamers.
For one, how long does that knowledge last? For instance, if Enemy Wizard casts Fireball, the PC Sorcerer identifies the spell with their reaction, and then next round Enemy Wizard begins to cast it again, can the PC Sorcerer Counterspell now? Logically, I would think she could -- she already has seen what the motions look like and what the words sound like to cast Fireball, so she should have that knowledge.
But what about if Enemy Sorcerer attempts to cast Fireball in an encounter tomorrow? Or next week? ... Or what if the original Enemy Wizard gets away, will PC Sorcerer remember what Fireball looked like a week from now?
What if the enemy spellcaster is attempting to cast a spell that PC Sorcerer knows? Stands to reason that a PC Sorcerer could immediately identify Fireball for free if they themselves use it on a daily basis.
It seems like the rule itself precludes this knowledge carrying over any length of time beyond the moment that the spell is identified. It doesn't say anything about identifying the spell now helping to Counterspell it in the next round, or in a day, or in two weeks. And if that is the case, then you basically need two magic-adept PCs to make use of this ability -- one to identify the spell, and one to use Counterspell. And then you need to deal with how that knowledge is shared in-universe.
To me, if a spell takes an action to cast (ie, less than 6 seconds), and it is going to require two reactions to identify and Counterspell, then there's super limited time to actually share the information. Basically, the in-game narrative is: 1) Enemy spellcaster begins casting a spell, coalescing arcana energy and saying draconic words 2) PC1 sees this, attempts to identify it, and succeeds 3) PC1 shouts to PC2 the name of the spell 4) PC2 casts Counterspell ... and all of that is supposed to be within 6 seconds as the high-end estimate of duration, and constitutes 2+ reactions from the PCs (personally, I take issue with PCs being able to communicate strategy outside of their turns, but understand if others do not feel that way).
This also doesn't vibe with existing skills either ... your best Arcana PC is likely going to be the same PC who is carrying Counterspell, if any.
I just don't like it. If you don't like Counterspell, then make some kind of table rule to weaken it or remove it entirely.
Yes - in fairness, I do introduce D&D to new players fairly frequently. For a more experienced group, I wouldn't be so obvious in my spell descriptions. That 'bead of fire bursting to life in his hand' would become 'the air around his hand begins to ripple with arcane energy as his spell takes shape' - or something similarly non-descript.
If Player 1 fails his check, then in-game he shouts that he doesn't know what the spell is. Player 2 can then decide whether to take the gamble.
From your description it does not sound like a gamble, it is a free arcana check, whether you know what the spell is or not you can still counter it.
The OP was pointing out that RAW that arcana check uses your reaction, might be useful for a charm spell but you are now unable to cast counterspell. You might rule that the character you identified the spell can shout "fireball" giving another caster the opportunity to counter it, but you then have to decide if there is time during the casting to 2 reactions and a shout.
I think RAW can work if players and dm can get used to not announcing the spell quickly and there are a lot of other features with a similar situation. I have a light cleric with warding flare, and if the dm says "The archer shoots you with a critical hit" I feel as if it is then too late to use warding flare. What I have ended up doing with my cleric is saying I will use warding flare ithe first time x or y attacks me, similarly the wizard could inform the dm he will counterspell any spell the bad guy casts
No, a player still has to use their reaction to make an arcana check. Player 2 can then cast Counterspell using their reaction based on the knowledge given by player 1. Which may be the specifics of the spell and which level it’s being cast at - or might be nothing, if they failed their arcana check.
The description is just a more narratively flowery way of saying ‘the mage casts fireball’. The mechanics don’t change.
DMs just say "The wizard casts Fireball." So do players. The game works fine this way.
This is just one of those concepts that seems cool on paper, but just doesn't stand up well in actual play. If Counterspell gets out of hand, there are limitations to the spell that smart enemies can exploit. When the DM says "The wizard casts Fireball" and the players says "Well then I cast Counterspell" and then the DM says "Well ACKSHUALLY you didn't know it was Fireball" it just feels like BS.
Works fine at our table, but mileage may vary. We're a fairly small group (4 players), and enemy mages are quite rare. And I also run a pretty narrative-heavy game.
I also never describe spells by their name. 'Fireball' to us is the out-of-game label to the spell effect. So I'll never say, 'The wizard casts fireball', I'll say 'The mage begins an incantation, and in a flash a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands, and with an evil grin he raises it towards Celedad, the halfling bard.'
Which gives plenty of time for necessary checks and counters. Would usually go something like:
DM: 'The mage begins to chant his incantation, and in a flash, a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands...' Player 1: 'Do I know what he's casting?' DM: 'Make an Arcana check ... [Roll] ... Yes, it's 'Fireball'... and with an evil grin, he raises his hand towards Celedad the halfling bard!' Player 2: 'I'll counter it!' DM: 'As the mage raises his hand, the wizard Arazul lifts his staff and yells a single word in draconic, and the bead of fire flashes brightly for a moment before disappearing in a crackle of arcane energy.'
It doesn't add much more time to the encounter - but adds a whole lot of narrative, tension and flavour to our game. It keeps magic something to be apprehensive about, gives our wizard narrative opportunities to be badass, and in our case, it's cool on paper - and even cooler when it plays out in game.
I just want to bring up the fact you're casting a fireball on a poor halfling bard. It's like burning up a little bunny.
That said I do kinda like the idea of someone (player 1) screaming FIREBALL (ie using the reaction for knowledge arcana) and the party mage (player 2) looking up in horror and quickly throw off a counterspell. It does make for some cool extra roleplaying moments as well.
Though, almost the same situation could be made with just the counterspeller tbh.
DM: 'The mage begins to chant his incantation, and in a flash, a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands...' Player 2: 'Do I know what he's casting?' DM: 'Make an Arcana check ... [Roll] ... Yes, it's 'Fireball'... and with an evil grin, he raises his hand towards Celedad the halfling bard!' Player 2: 'I'll counter it!' DM: 'As the mage raises his hand, the wizard Arazul lifts his staff and yells a single word in draconic, and the bead of fire flashes brightly for a moment before disappearing in a crackle of arcane energy.'
I love the description though :)
I think it might make some kind of sense knowing perhaps the strength of the spell and/or the school though... But not sure, it would give you a rough idea of how much power to put into your counterspell for it to work, or a rough idea of what might be able to go down. But not sure what I think really and tbh it still would be a house rule.
Yes - in fairness, I do introduce D&D to new players fairly frequently. For a more experienced group, I wouldn't be so obvious in my spell descriptions. That 'bead of fire bursting to life in his hand' would become 'the air around his hand begins to ripple with arcane energy as his spell takes shape' - or something similarly non-descript.
If Player 1 fails his check, then in-game he shouts that he doesn't know what the spell is. Player 2 can then decide whether to take the gamble.
From your description it does not sound like a gamble, it is a free arcana check, whether you know what the spell is or not you can still counter it.
The OP was pointing out that RAW that arcana check uses your reaction, might be useful for a charm spell but you are now unable to cast counterspell. You might rule that the character you identified the spell can shout "fireball" giving another caster the opportunity to counter it, but you then have to decide if there is time during the casting to 2 reactions and a shout.
I think RAW can work if players and dm can get used to not announcing the spell quickly and there are a lot of other features with a similar situation. I have a light cleric with warding flare, and if the dm says "The archer shoots you with a critical hit" I feel as if it is then too late to use warding flare. What I have ended up doing with my cleric is saying I will use warding flare ithe first time x or y attacks me, similarly the wizard could inform the dm he will counterspell any spell the bad guy casts
It's probably a good idea to remind your DM that you have warding flare if it isn't used often (maybe even if it is) or like you mention, say in advance that you plan to use it. If you do this and the GM says "He attacks and crits" you can without shame say, "Yeah, but I said before I would use the warding flare if I was attacked" and in this case it's really the DMs "fault" for being too eager. But reminding the DM you have it is good since you might accept some hits but not all, so that you have the chance to use it. There are abilities that work AFTER a hit, but warding flare doesn't really (though DM rolling and forgetting you said you would use it isn't "your" fault and would be fair. It would happen if he rolled a 1 as well.).
The problem I see with saying you will counterspell anything the bad guy casts is it puts a weird meta knowledge upon the DM. Me, personally, I'd feel (as a DM) it would kinda suck if I had actually planned to cast a cantrip this turn and a level 9 the round after. And I'd have to think "Is this REALLY what the bad guy would cast" because honestly I'd feel bad about the player wasting a counterspell on a cantrip.
Attacks are usually roughly the same from round to round, with minor differences, so a warding flare wouldn't be as different in its use from one round to another.
Most DMs aren't going to say, "Ok, the wizard's casting a spell..." and then wait to see if someone wants to Counterspell. For every single spell. In every single encounter. It's just not practical and it's practically baiting the Counterspeller to spend all their slots on Counterspell. It also requires the PCs to use this same language in the off chance that an enemy is ready to counter them. Now you've slowed combat by 25% for one rule about one spell.
DMs just say "The wizard casts Fireball." So do players. The game works fine this way.
This is just one of those concepts that seems cool on paper, but just doesn't stand up well in actual play. If Counterspell gets out of hand, there are limitations to the spell that smart enemies can exploit. When the DM says "The wizard casts Fireball" and the players says "Well then I cast Counterspell" and then the DM says "Well ACKSHUALLY you didn't know it was Fireball" it just feels like BS.
How a rule feels at the table is important. And this one doesn't feel good. I'd bet by best dice that JC doesn't actually use this rule rigorously at his own table.
Honestly, your first paragraph is exactly what I do and it works fine and doesn't slow the game down at all.
DM says: "The wizard casts a spell"
Player says: "Counterspell" or NOT.
DM resolves the effect of the spell (and the players find out what was cast) or NOT.
Players do the same and everyone trusts each other not to lie about what was cast. If trust is an issue at your table - have the caster write it down - but that will slow things down.
On the other hand, just letting everyone know what was cast also works fine and if that is what your table prefers then go for it.
The issues I take with the spell identification rule are that it is fairly inelegant, and to me reads so much like a rule built for metagamers.
For one, how long does that knowledge last? For instance, if Enemy Wizard casts Fireball, the PC Sorcerer identifies the spell with their reaction, and then next round Enemy Wizard begins to cast it again, can the PC Sorcerer Counterspell now? Logically, I would think she could -- she already has seen what the motions look like and what the words sound like to cast Fireball, so she should have that knowledge.
But what about if Enemy Sorcerer attempts to cast Fireball in an encounter tomorrow? Or next week? ... Or what if the original Enemy Wizard gets away, will PC Sorcerer remember what Fireball looked like a week from now?
What if the enemy spellcaster is attempting to cast a spell that PC Sorcerer knows? Stands to reason that a PC Sorcerer could immediately identify Fireball for free if they themselves use it on a daily basis.
It seems like the rule itself precludes this knowledge carrying over any length of time beyond the moment that the spell is identified. It doesn't say anything about identifying the spell now helping to Counterspell it in the next round, or in a day, or in two weeks. And if that is the case, then you basically need two magic-adept PCs to make use of this ability -- one to identify the spell, and one to use Counterspell. And then you need to deal with how that knowledge is shared in-universe.
To me, if a spell takes an action to cast (ie, less than 6 seconds), and it is going to require two reactions to identify and Counterspell, then there's super limited time to actually share the information. Basically, the in-game narrative is: 1) Enemy spellcaster begins casting a spell, coalescing arcana energy and saying draconic words 2) PC1 sees this, attempts to identify it, and succeeds 3) PC1 shouts to PC2 the name of the spell 4) PC2 casts Counterspell ... and all of that is supposed to be within 6 seconds as the high-end estimate of duration, and constitutes 2+ reactions from the PCs (personally, I take issue with PCs being able to communicate strategy outside of their turns, but understand if others do not feel that way).
This also doesn't vibe with existing skills either ... your best Arcana PC is likely going to be the same PC who is carrying Counterspell, if any.
I just don't like it. If you don't like Counterspell, then make some kind of table rule to weaken it or remove it entirely.
Just one comment on spell identification - the ability to recognize a spell cast by different casters depends on how the DM and game runs spells. The rules for copying spells implies that every spell caster has a unique notation and may in fact have different verbal, somatic and material components for producing exactly the same spell effect. It is even possible that the same caster, casting the same spell, may get the same effect without exactly the same movements. It may depend on how the fundamentals of magic are defined in the game.
For instance it is possible to cast spells entirely using the mind if you are a sorcerer with subtle metamagic. This demonstrates that, at least under some circumstances, components aren't even required to obtain spell effects.
So there is no reason that every spell caster would use exactly the same gestures, words or material components for any particular spell. Nor that every time they cast it would it be exactly the same. In addition, it also isn't defined how different the movements and words for one spell are from another. Is the person casting fireball or scorching ray?
As a result, depending on how the DM implements the details of magic in their game world (which are not specified in the DMG or PHB as far as I know). A system of identifying spells could vary from - see the spell once, know it forever no matter who casts it TO an identification check is required every time you see a spell cast because different spells are either so similar that they are difficult to separate or can be different every time they are cast and identification requires quickly recognizing common elements to figure out what spell it actually is ... it could even be a combination of both so that different spells can have very similar gestures/words but those can also vary somewhat with each casting.
It also requires the PCs to use this same language in the off chance that an enemy is ready to counter them. Now you've slowed combat by 25% for one rule about one spell.
The DM has to be respected as a neutral arbiter.
Player: I cast a spell DM: The mage casts counterspell Player: I don't lose spell slot as I was only going to cast firebolt
Player: I cast a spell DM: The mage doesn't counterspell Player: I cast fireball
Of course you can say the DM could do the same thing when the NPC casts a spell. However while it is natural that the PCs become attached to there characters and want the best for them to the point that enough could be tempted to cheat that things like open rolling becomes the norm the same does not apply to the DM. If they want to ensure the PCs are defeated then the DM has planty of ways of doing that better than only countering the highest level spells while not allowing the players to do that.
The DM could either decide before the players turn, whether he will counterspell if he casts a spell or he could roll (e.g. roll a d20 if his roll is less than or equal to the 3 times number of spell slots he has available he casts counterspell).
The issues I take with the spell identification rule are that it is fairly inelegant, and to me reads so much like a rule built for metagamers.
For one, how long does that knowledge last? For instance, if Enemy Wizard casts Fireball, the PC Sorcerer identifies the spell with their reaction, and then next round Enemy Wizard begins to cast it again, can the PC Sorcerer Counterspell now? Logically, I would think she could -- she already has seen what the motions look like and what the words sound like to cast Fireball, so she should have that knowledge.
But what about if Enemy Sorcerer attempts to cast Fireball in an encounter tomorrow? Or next week? ... Or what if the original Enemy Wizard gets away, will PC Sorcerer remember what Fireball looked like a week from now?
What if the enemy spellcaster is attempting to cast a spell that PC Sorcerer knows? Stands to reason that a PC Sorcerer could immediately identify Fireball for free if they themselves use it on a daily basis.
It seems like the rule itself precludes this knowledge carrying over any length of time beyond the moment that the spell is identified. It doesn't say anything about identifying the spell now helping to Counterspell it in the next round, or in a day, or in two weeks. And if that is the case, then you basically need two magic-adept PCs to make use of this ability -- one to identify the spell, and one to use Counterspell. And then you need to deal with how that knowledge is shared in-universe.
To me, if a spell takes an action to cast (ie, less than 6 seconds), and it is going to require two reactions to identify and Counterspell, then there's super limited time to actually share the information. Basically, the in-game narrative is: 1) Enemy spellcaster begins casting a spell, coalescing arcana energy and saying draconic words 2) PC1 sees this, attempts to identify it, and succeeds 3) PC1 shouts to PC2 the name of the spell 4) PC2 casts Counterspell ... and all of that is supposed to be within 6 seconds as the high-end estimate of duration, and constitutes 2+ reactions from the PCs (personally, I take issue with PCs being able to communicate strategy outside of their turns, but understand if others do not feel that way).
This also doesn't vibe with existing skills either ... your best Arcana PC is likely going to be the same PC who is carrying Counterspell, if any.
I just don't like it. If you don't like Counterspell, then make some kind of table rule to weaken it or remove it entirely.
Just one comment on spell identification - the ability to recognize a spell cast by different casters depends on how the DM and game runs spells. The rules for copying spells implies that every spell caster has a unique notation and may in fact have different verbal, somatic and material components for producing exactly the same spell effect. It is even possible that the same caster, casting the same spell, may get the same effect without exactly the same movements. It may depend on how the fundamentals of magic are defined in the game.
For instance it is possible to cast spells entirely using the mind if you are a sorcerer with subtle metamagic. This demonstrates that, at least under some circumstances, components aren't even required to obtain spell effects.
So there is no reason that every spell caster would use exactly the same gestures, words or material components for any particular spell. Nor that every time they cast it would it be exactly the same. In addition, it also isn't defined how different the movements and words for one spell are from another. Is the person casting fireball or scorching ray?
As a result, depending on how the DM implements the details of magic in their game world (which are not specified in the DMG or PHB as far as I know). A system of identifying spells could vary from - see the spell once, know it forever no matter who casts it TO an identification check is required every time you see a spell cast because different spells are either so similar that they are difficult to separate or can be different every time they are cast and identification requires quickly recognizing common elements to figure out what spell it actually is ... it could even be a combination of both so that different spells can have very similar gestures/words but those can also vary somewhat with each casting.
Per the rules about casting a spell, "The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion". I, personally, read that as a spell requiring a specific set of words (sounds with specific pitch and resonance, to be precise) to cast a specific spell. No modification is possible, short of Subtle Spell or other similar abilities.
You're right that it could very likely change from table to table, but to me, Fireball is Fireball is Fireball. They all look and sound incredibly similar, whether it is a PC wizard or an enemy sorcerer.
If it wasn't clear from my original post, I don't use the "Spell Identification" rules. (Similarly, I also don't require "Identify" to identify what a magic item does. That information is freely given to PCs, or has narrative reason for its obfuscation.) And Counterspell is generally not used at my table. That's just generally how it goes, so I don't have much opinion on the intricacies of these rules.
If I were to use them, I think a PC would need to have a spellbook-like mechanic to clarify what spells they are acutely familiar with and what spells they are generally aware of. If, say, a sorcerer knows Fireball, then they can identify that spell for free and Counterspell on first use. If they don't know Lightning Bolt, then they must identify it (with an Arcana check) using a Reaction, and from then they know the spell when it happens, no Reaction needed.
If I were to use them, I think a PC would need to have a spellbook-like mechanic to clarify what spells they are acutely familiar with and what spells they are generally aware of. If, say, a sorcerer knows Fireball, then they can identify that spell for free and Counterspell on first use. If they don't know Lightning Bolt, then they must identify it (with an Arcana check) using a Reaction, and from then they know the spell when it happens, no Reaction needed.
That's a fair enough house-rule, but I'd simplify it to be 'if they have the spell prepared and can cast it, then they automatically know when someone else is casting it'. It's no less clunky than a wizard 'forgetting' how to cast a spell they haven't prepared.
The reason I do use the spell identification rules, isn't primarily for the use of counterspell - it's to give Arcana more use, and to build mystery, tension, and drama around spells. It allows the Arcana specialist to let the party know what's coming, which help them decide if they want to use their reaction (if they have one) to do something - like a rogue using Uncanny Dodge.
For me, I like the idea of the Arcana specialist being able to use their skills to identify spells being cast, but not automatically to help balance spells like counterspell. It's narratively cool, and allows magic to create drama and tension at the table. But balancing the all-powerful counterspell is important.
The reason I do use the spell identification rules, isn't primarily for the use of counterspell - it's to give Arcana more use, and to build mystery, tension, and drama around spells. It helps the Arcana specialist help let the party know what's coming, which help them decide if they want to use their reaction (if they have one) to do something - like a rogue using Uncanny Dodge.
For me, I like the idea of the Arcana specialist being able to use their skills to identify spells being cast, but not automatically to help balance spells like counterspell. It's narratively cool, and allows magic to create drama and tension at the table. But balancing the all-powerful counterspell is important.
I think that's a good reason to do so. Personally right now I'm experimenting with allowing spellcasters to expand their spell lists via Arcana. It might be a terrible idea, but it will at least give that high Arcana player something to help with!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I just happened to read up in the rules a bit and came upon a, in my opinion, gamechanging rule (by RAW that is).
I'm sure everyone considers counterspell being one of the more powerful spells around, simply because of it's great usage to counter a spell being cast as a reaction.
However, here are the DMG rules for identifying a spell:
So, by RAW, you can't both identify what spell is being cast AND counterspell it at the same time. I mean, in a way it makes sense, either you spend time trying to figure out what spell is being cast, or you spend that time simply dispelling it. Spending a reaction to know what spell is being cast has it's uses, like figuring out someone just put a charm person on your ally, or some other spells with less obvious effects, but if you can't do it at the same time as you counterspell, it will seriously limit the effects of the counterspell. You don't know if you're about to stop the BBEG from casting the guidance cantrip or finger of death.
I'm not sure how I feel about it to be honest, I like the reasoning and it kinda makes sense it takes some effort to actually figure out what spell is being cast, since not everyone cast spells the same way (not even if it's the same spell). But other reaction spells like shield happen when you're hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell. So this would mean it's cast AFTER the spell or attack has begun, and you can see the effect of it (A sword or a few magic missiles coming right at you).
Absorb elements is similar, it works after you take damage and absorbs it, meaning you must know that some kind of elemental attack is coming for you so you can absorb part of it.
Temporal Shunt (chronurgy magic) would have the same issues as counterspell, in that it is made when someone starts casting a spell or makes an attack roll.
So, it's basically, either identify the spell being cast or gamble that it's something extra horrible this particular turn and hope you didn't just counterspell a cantrip. Also have faith in your GM not swapping that successful dispel of a level 9 spell, into a level 2 spell and casting the level 9 next turn instead. (My GM wouldn't, but I've had GM's who would.)
You've actually quoted Xanathar's Guide to Everything (Page 85), not the DMG. But you're absolutely right - the power of Counterspell is supposed to be balanced by the gamble of not knowing whether the spell is worth countering, and to prevent mage encounters from devolving into a counterspell-fest. JC introduced these rules for that reason:
I actually like this rule. It introduces a bit of mystery when a creature begins casting a spell, and gives those with Arcana the opportunity to shine. It also allows some tactical identification, where one player can use their reaction to identify a spell - while another fires off the appropriate counter.
Most DMs aren't going to say, "Ok, the wizard's casting a spell..." and then wait to see if someone wants to Counterspell. For every single spell. In every single encounter. It's just not practical and it's practically baiting the Counterspeller to spend all their slots on Counterspell. It also requires the PCs to use this same language in the off chance that an enemy is ready to counter them. Now you've slowed combat by 25% for one rule about one spell.
DMs just say "The wizard casts Fireball." So do players. The game works fine this way.
This is just one of those concepts that seems cool on paper, but just doesn't stand up well in actual play. If Counterspell gets out of hand, there are limitations to the spell that smart enemies can exploit. When the DM says "The wizard casts Fireball" and the players says "Well then I cast Counterspell" and then the DM says "Well ACKSHUALLY you didn't know it was Fireball" it just feels like BS.
How a rule feels at the table is important. And this one doesn't feel good. I'd bet by best dice that JC doesn't actually use this rule rigorously at his own table.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Oh, yeah, my bad. I had DMG open as well (dndbeyond) and this part was under Dungeon Master's Tools so probably misread that :)
My AL group actually does do this. It IS baiting counter, but we don't have to take it. And it takes less than a minute, so an hour long combat doesn't really notice.
I play with the house(?) rule that passive skills exist in all categories and passive Arcana is a thing. So, if you have +8 Arcana, your passive is 18, and therefore you can identify any spell level 3 or lower for free, without a reaction.
Like above, using this method takes no time at all. And makes for tactical counterspelling rather than “Level 9 spell = Level 9 counterspell”. Lots more decision making required now, on both sides. And it’s fun to see the wizard duel work.
Works fine at our table, but mileage may vary. We're a fairly small group (4 players), and enemy mages are quite rare. And I also run a pretty narrative-heavy game.
I also never describe spells by their name. 'Fireball' to us is the out-of-game label to the spell effect. So I'll never say, 'The wizard casts fireball', I'll say 'The mage begins an incantation, and in a flash a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands, and with an evil grin he raises it towards Celedad, the halfling bard.'
Which gives plenty of time for necessary checks and counters. Would usually go something like:
DM: 'The mage begins to chant his incantation, and in a flash, a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands...'
Player 1: 'Do I know what he's casting?'
DM: 'Make an Arcana check ... [Roll] ... Yes, it's 'Fireball'... and with an evil grin, he raises his hand towards Celedad the halfling bard!'
Player 2: 'I'll counter it!'
DM: 'As the mage raises his hand, the wizard Arazul lifts his staff and yells a single word in draconic, and the bead of fire flashes brightly for a moment before disappearing in a crackle of arcane energy.'
It doesn't add much more time to the encounter - but adds a whole lot of narrative, tension and flavour to our game. It keeps magic something to be apprehensive about, gives our wizard narrative opportunities to be badass, and in our case, it's cool on paper - and even cooler when it plays out in game.
To each his own, I suppose.
At my table, the issue with that would be that the player knows darn well what "a bead of fire bursting to life in his hands" means, so what does player 2 do if player 1 fails his check? Is he obligated not to have the character Counterspell just because he definitely would have done so if the check succeeded? There's tension here, but it's the weird metagamey kind that breaks immersion.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yes - in fairness, I do introduce D&D to new players fairly frequently. For a more experienced group, I wouldn't be so obvious in my spell descriptions. That 'bead of fire bursting to life in his hand' would become 'the air around his hand begins to ripple with arcane energy as his spell takes shape' - or something similarly non-descript.
If Player 1 fails his check, then in-game he shouts that he doesn't know what the spell is. Player 2 can then decide whether to take the gamble.
The issues I take with the spell identification rule are that it is fairly inelegant, and to me reads so much like a rule built for metagamers.
For one, how long does that knowledge last? For instance, if Enemy Wizard casts Fireball, the PC Sorcerer identifies the spell with their reaction, and then next round Enemy Wizard begins to cast it again, can the PC Sorcerer Counterspell now? Logically, I would think she could -- she already has seen what the motions look like and what the words sound like to cast Fireball, so she should have that knowledge.
But what about if Enemy Sorcerer attempts to cast Fireball in an encounter tomorrow? Or next week? ... Or what if the original Enemy Wizard gets away, will PC Sorcerer remember what Fireball looked like a week from now?
What if the enemy spellcaster is attempting to cast a spell that PC Sorcerer knows? Stands to reason that a PC Sorcerer could immediately identify Fireball for free if they themselves use it on a daily basis.
It seems like the rule itself precludes this knowledge carrying over any length of time beyond the moment that the spell is identified. It doesn't say anything about identifying the spell now helping to Counterspell it in the next round, or in a day, or in two weeks. And if that is the case, then you basically need two magic-adept PCs to make use of this ability -- one to identify the spell, and one to use Counterspell. And then you need to deal with how that knowledge is shared in-universe.
To me, if a spell takes an action to cast (ie, less than 6 seconds), and it is going to require two reactions to identify and Counterspell, then there's super limited time to actually share the information. Basically, the in-game narrative is:
1) Enemy spellcaster begins casting a spell, coalescing arcana energy and saying draconic words
2) PC1 sees this, attempts to identify it, and succeeds
3) PC1 shouts to PC2 the name of the spell
4) PC2 casts Counterspell
... and all of that is supposed to be within 6 seconds as the high-end estimate of duration, and constitutes 2+ reactions from the PCs (personally, I take issue with PCs being able to communicate strategy outside of their turns, but understand if others do not feel that way).
This also doesn't vibe with existing skills either ... your best Arcana PC is likely going to be the same PC who is carrying Counterspell, if any.
I just don't like it. If you don't like Counterspell, then make some kind of table rule to weaken it or remove it entirely.
From your description it does not sound like a gamble, it is a free arcana check, whether you know what the spell is or not you can still counter it.
The OP was pointing out that RAW that arcana check uses your reaction, might be useful for a charm spell but you are now unable to cast counterspell. You might rule that the character you identified the spell can shout "fireball" giving another caster the opportunity to counter it, but you then have to decide if there is time during the casting to 2 reactions and a shout.
I think RAW can work if players and dm can get used to not announcing the spell quickly and there are a lot of other features with a similar situation. I have a light cleric with warding flare, and if the dm says "The archer shoots you with a critical hit" I feel as if it is then too late to use warding flare. What I have ended up doing with my cleric is saying I will use warding flare ithe first time x or y attacks me, similarly the wizard could inform the dm he will counterspell any spell the bad guy casts
No, a player still has to use their reaction to make an arcana check. Player 2 can then cast Counterspell using their reaction based on the knowledge given by player 1. Which may be the specifics of the spell and which level it’s being cast at - or might be nothing, if they failed their arcana check.
The description is just a more narratively flowery way of saying ‘the mage casts fireball’. The mechanics don’t change.
I just want to bring up the fact you're casting a fireball on a poor halfling bard. It's like burning up a little bunny.
That said I do kinda like the idea of someone (player 1) screaming FIREBALL (ie using the reaction for knowledge arcana) and the party mage (player 2) looking up in horror and quickly throw off a counterspell. It does make for some cool extra roleplaying moments as well.
Though, almost the same situation could be made with just the counterspeller tbh.
DM: 'The mage begins to chant his incantation, and in a flash, a bead of fire bursts into life in one of his hands...'
Player 2: 'Do I know what he's casting?'
DM: 'Make an Arcana check ... [Roll] ... Yes, it's 'Fireball'... and with an evil grin, he raises his hand towards Celedad the halfling bard!'
Player 2: 'I'll counter it!'
DM: 'As the mage raises his hand, the wizard Arazul lifts his staff and yells a single word in draconic, and the bead of fire flashes brightly for a moment before disappearing in a crackle of arcane energy.'
I love the description though :)
I think it might make some kind of sense knowing perhaps the strength of the spell and/or the school though... But not sure, it would give you a rough idea of how much power to put into your counterspell for it to work, or a rough idea of what might be able to go down. But not sure what I think really and tbh it still would be a house rule.
It's probably a good idea to remind your DM that you have warding flare if it isn't used often (maybe even if it is) or like you mention, say in advance that you plan to use it. If you do this and the GM says "He attacks and crits" you can without shame say, "Yeah, but I said before I would use the warding flare if I was attacked" and in this case it's really the DMs "fault" for being too eager. But reminding the DM you have it is good since you might accept some hits but not all, so that you have the chance to use it. There are abilities that work AFTER a hit, but warding flare doesn't really (though DM rolling and forgetting you said you would use it isn't "your" fault and would be fair. It would happen if he rolled a 1 as well.).
The problem I see with saying you will counterspell anything the bad guy casts is it puts a weird meta knowledge upon the DM. Me, personally, I'd feel (as a DM) it would kinda suck if I had actually planned to cast a cantrip this turn and a level 9 the round after. And I'd have to think "Is this REALLY what the bad guy would cast" because honestly I'd feel bad about the player wasting a counterspell on a cantrip.
Attacks are usually roughly the same from round to round, with minor differences, so a warding flare wouldn't be as different in its use from one round to another.
Honestly, your first paragraph is exactly what I do and it works fine and doesn't slow the game down at all.
DM says: "The wizard casts a spell"
Player says: "Counterspell" or NOT.
DM resolves the effect of the spell (and the players find out what was cast) or NOT.
Players do the same and everyone trusts each other not to lie about what was cast. If trust is an issue at your table - have the caster write it down - but that will slow things down.
On the other hand, just letting everyone know what was cast also works fine and if that is what your table prefers then go for it.
Just one comment on spell identification - the ability to recognize a spell cast by different casters depends on how the DM and game runs spells. The rules for copying spells implies that every spell caster has a unique notation and may in fact have different verbal, somatic and material components for producing exactly the same spell effect. It is even possible that the same caster, casting the same spell, may get the same effect without exactly the same movements. It may depend on how the fundamentals of magic are defined in the game.
For instance it is possible to cast spells entirely using the mind if you are a sorcerer with subtle metamagic. This demonstrates that, at least under some circumstances, components aren't even required to obtain spell effects.
So there is no reason that every spell caster would use exactly the same gestures, words or material components for any particular spell. Nor that every time they cast it would it be exactly the same. In addition, it also isn't defined how different the movements and words for one spell are from another. Is the person casting fireball or scorching ray?
As a result, depending on how the DM implements the details of magic in their game world (which are not specified in the DMG or PHB as far as I know). A system of identifying spells could vary from - see the spell once, know it forever no matter who casts it TO an identification check is required every time you see a spell cast because different spells are either so similar that they are difficult to separate or can be different every time they are cast and identification requires quickly recognizing common elements to figure out what spell it actually is ... it could even be a combination of both so that different spells can have very similar gestures/words but those can also vary somewhat with each casting.
The DM has to be respected as a neutral arbiter.
Player: I cast a spell
DM: The mage casts counterspell
Player: I don't lose spell slot as I was only going to cast firebolt
Player: I cast a spell
DM: The mage doesn't counterspell
Player: I cast fireball
Of course you can say the DM could do the same thing when the NPC casts a spell. However while it is natural that the PCs become attached to there characters and want the best for them to the point that enough could be tempted to cheat that things like open rolling becomes the norm the same does not apply to the DM. If they want to ensure the PCs are defeated then the DM has planty of ways of doing that better than only countering the highest level spells while not allowing the players to do that.
The DM could either decide before the players turn, whether he will counterspell if he casts a spell or he could roll (e.g. roll a d20 if his roll is less than or equal to the 3 times number of spell slots he has available he casts counterspell).
Per the rules about casting a spell, "The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion". I, personally, read that as a spell requiring a specific set of words (sounds with specific pitch and resonance, to be precise) to cast a specific spell. No modification is possible, short of Subtle Spell or other similar abilities.
You're right that it could very likely change from table to table, but to me, Fireball is Fireball is Fireball. They all look and sound incredibly similar, whether it is a PC wizard or an enemy sorcerer.
If it wasn't clear from my original post, I don't use the "Spell Identification" rules. (Similarly, I also don't require "Identify" to identify what a magic item does. That information is freely given to PCs, or has narrative reason for its obfuscation.) And Counterspell is generally not used at my table. That's just generally how it goes, so I don't have much opinion on the intricacies of these rules.
If I were to use them, I think a PC would need to have a spellbook-like mechanic to clarify what spells they are acutely familiar with and what spells they are generally aware of. If, say, a sorcerer knows Fireball, then they can identify that spell for free and Counterspell on first use. If they don't know Lightning Bolt, then they must identify it (with an Arcana check) using a Reaction, and from then they know the spell when it happens, no Reaction needed.
That's a fair enough house-rule, but I'd simplify it to be 'if they have the spell prepared and can cast it, then they automatically know when someone else is casting it'. It's no less clunky than a wizard 'forgetting' how to cast a spell they haven't prepared.
The reason I do use the spell identification rules, isn't primarily for the use of counterspell - it's to give Arcana more use, and to build mystery, tension, and drama around spells. It allows the Arcana specialist to let the party know what's coming, which help them decide if they want to use their reaction (if they have one) to do something - like a rogue using Uncanny Dodge.
For me, I like the idea of the Arcana specialist being able to use their skills to identify spells being cast, but not automatically to help balance spells like counterspell. It's narratively cool, and allows magic to create drama and tension at the table. But balancing the all-powerful counterspell is important.
I think that's a good reason to do so. Personally right now I'm experimenting with allowing spellcasters to expand their spell lists via Arcana. It might be a terrible idea, but it will at least give that high Arcana player something to help with!