D&D 5E Counterspell - Do I know my foes' spell before I counter?

[Nutation]

You say you find Counterspells egregious, DM'd as you do, right? I feel like announcing the spell-slot for free could be a mistake. It means they never risk throwing away a higher spell slot on a lower. And they could keep track of whats left in the tank.

Coming into this thread, I didn't think very hard about spell slot and metamagic, only spell name. But I believe now that all three are important hidden information.

Valid points. I was speaking generally of the style of AL D&D in my area (Los Angeles). Many judges announce the spell; a few just declare spellcasting; no one calls for ability checks. My own style is apparently "distinctive". In any case, tables often contain 2+ casters with counterspell, and everything that can be countered is.

 

[Psikerlord#]

You're also giving full information without a check, right?

Yes true, well I start to describe what hte spell looks or feels like.. then they decide

 

[bbrown12]

From the numerous posts and szenarios described I assume the best way would be:

1.) Tell the players the spell name (without a check).

Reasons:
- If you don't tell them, they will ask for an arcana/religion check for any spell, what will slow down the game.
- If you describe one the spell's effect, it also takes time and can be misunderstood easily. In addition, the DM always knows the spells of the players what makes it quite unfair.


2.) If a player decides to counter, he can make an arcana/religion check to find out the spell slot used for the initial spell. He HAS TO counter then, irrespective of whether or not he succeeded in that check.

Wouldn't that be a fair compromise?

 

[clearstream]

From the numerous posts and szenarios described I assume the best way would be:

1.) Tell the players the spell name (without a check).

Reasons:
- If you don't tell them, they will ask for an arcana/religion check for any spell, what will slow down the game.
- If you describe one the spell's effect, it also takes time and can be misunderstood easily. In addition, the DM always knows the spells of the players what makes it quite unfair.

I feel like the reasons here are a bit sketchy. The DM always has more information than the NPCs under their control, and must master the art of channelling their NPCs' motives, knowledge and means of their NPCs. That's a fundamental part of the craft and not specific to identifying spells. Regarding the concern for time at the table - always a fair one - perhaps Passive Arcana / Religion gets the name? You just note your characters' passives and it's quick to resolve. So if I have a Passive of say 15 I get all spell names for arcane casts, up to level 3. That still rewards investment in the skill, but addresses the concern about rolling. The downside is that if they don't get the info automatically, they know the minimum level, but at least it reduces the number of checks.

2.) If a player decides to counter, he can make an arcana/religion check to find out the spell slot used for the initial spell. He HAS TO counter then, irrespective of whether or not he succeeded in that check.

Wouldn't that be a fair compromise?

So if we give name on Passive, giving slot and metamagic on active skill use makes sense. Forcing a Counterspell doesn't: I can't see players liking that much. It also seems unnecessary. If the player makes their check and decides not to counter? Great! They'll have a warm feeling inside from being so clever as to take proficiency in Arcana. Or if they fail, and decide not to Counterspell because they don't feel sure it will work. Also great!

 

[bbrown12]

So if we give name on Passive, giving slot and metamagic on active skill use makes sense. Forcing a Counterspell doesn't: I can't see players liking that much. It also seems unnecessary. If the player makes their check and decides not to counter? Great! They'll have a warm feeling inside from being so clever as to take proficiency in Arcana. Or if they fail, and decide not to Counterspell because they don't feel sure it will work. Also great!

Well, can't say anything against it. You are right! Should have taken more time in my break to reply.

 

[Harzel]

The DM always has more information than the NPCs under their control, and must master the art of channelling their NPCs' motives, knowledge and means of their NPCs. That's a fundamental part of the craft and not specific to identifying spells.

This.

I am quite confused about the folks saying it is 'unfair' that the DM knows what PCs are casting, but not vice versa. The DM knows all the PCs stats, including saving throws and HP, their goals, probably their strategic and tactical plans, all terrain details including traps and hazards, all NPC thoughts and capabilities - everything knowable about the world.* Which spell a PC is casting is a minor item amongst all the knowledge that she could use against the PCs. She has to be able to compartmentalize her knowledge for encounters to have any semblance of fairness.**

The player declares his character is casting a spell and writes spell on a piece of paper unseen by the DM. Places paper upside down in the centre of the table. NPC/monsters makes a knowledge check to identify spell and spell level slot utilised. If successful DM turns the piece of paper over revealing the spell, if not NPC/monsters makes a judgement call whether to counterspell an unknown spell.
Same goes for the characters attempting to identify an NPC/monster spell.

If I had to do that at my table, it's because I'd like as a DM to be surprised too and play the game without having to supress the metagame side to make perhaps suboptimal ("realistic") choice to be the good DM. It be nice if things flowed naturally. I think this system would aid it and be entertaining as well.

Yes, if done to increase fun, that seems great, but if it is viewed as necessary, then it just seems silly because it is such a small part of what the DM has to be trusted with.

* There are playstyles for which this is not true, or at least is lessened, but to the best of my knowledge those aren't common in D&D.

** For Critical Role fans who might currently be, well, sensitized to omniscient NPCs - yes, that would be the exception. I think part of Mercer's fun recently has been having an NPC who "knows ev-er-y-thing" (read that in Vecna voice), so that he has to compartmentalize very little. That grin is only partly acting, me thinks.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

To EVERYONE here who demands checks from PCs to know what spells NPCs/monsters are casting, how do you handle it from the DM side of the screen when counterspelling PC spells?

The DM is sitting with the actual knowledge of the PC spell being cast - I think there is some bias if you're going to be calling for arcana/religion checks for spells you as DM deem highly detrimental for your NPCs/monsters. How can you honestly be objectionable/fair?

Its quite easy to be objective. I give the NPCs the same chance as the PCs to recognize a spell being cast. If they recognize it (via an arcana or religion check), the NPC will counterspell if its in their interest to do so. If they fail the check and don't recognize the spell, then they don't counterspell. I only use the knowledge about what the spell is if the check is made.

 

[Sadras]

The DM knows all the PCs stats,

Agree.

including saving throws

Are you, as DM, targetting characters' saving throws they are not proficient in or do you let the combat play out naturally.

and HP,

Are you, as DM, delibertately targetting characters with fewer hit points, or do you let the combat play out naturally.

etc.

Which spell a PC is casting is a minor item amongst all the knowledge that she could use against the PCs.

Given that spells can be combat changers, I don't agree that the casting of spells is something minor.

She has to be able to compartmentalize her knowledge for encounters to have any semblance of fairness.

Sure, given the nature of counterspelling where you directly negate a pc's action I think it is quite different to the examples you've listed above, where DM knowledge plays an active in-your-face role.

Its quite easy to be objective. I give the NPCs the same chance as the PCs to recognize a spell being cast. If they recognize it (via an arcana or religion check), the NPC will counterspell if its in their interest to do so.

So you roll for every spell the PCs cast or only the spells that you would like to counterspell?
Rolling can be fun, personally in this instance I don't believe it is necessary or fun - rather implement a passive arcana check to see if the caster recognised the spell. Fair for all and faster at the table.

 

[clearstream]

Are you, as DM, targetting characters' saving throws they are not proficient in or do you let the combat play out naturally.

That depends. Experienced NPCs whose lives depend on it might have acquired knowledge of some saves. For a character looks like a martial they might guess that effects targeting their Wisdom or Intelligence will be more successful (sadly, in D&D stereotypes are backed up by mechanics). For a dwarf they might guess that poison isn't the best damage type. Automatons just carry out their orders, no knowledge applied. I do assume that natural selection in a magical world has lead to natural creatures - animals - having reasonable survival instincts. So knowing to attack a weak stat isn't purely a matter of sentience.

Are you, as DM, delibertately targetting characters with fewer hit points, or do you let the combat play out naturally.

That depends. Right now in OOTA a Shadow Demon is alone with a character it has just taken down. It is going to spend an action to deprive that character of two death saves. Another NPC - a Medusa - is going to loose arrows at the character it has already wounded, hoping to kill them. Earlier, stone soldiers simply battered whichever character was nearest (dog-piling onto the hapless bard!)

There must also be an element of good-for-the-gander etc, if I allow my PCs to act based on knowing that a foe is hurt, likely to be weak to certain spells or whatever, then that is because those things are able to be known and perceived in the background world.

Given that spells can be combat changers, I don't agree that the casting of spells is something minor.

Whether it is or is not, it is simply one of the many things a DM must adjudicate with a sense of fairness, drama and good humour. I like to surprise my players, and am delighted when they surprise me.

Sure, given the nature of counterspelling where you directly negate a pc's action I think it is quite different to the examples you've listed above, where DM knowledge plays an active in-your-face role.

It seems really the same to me. Player does X, I arbitrate what happens. Could be a Counterspell, could be an attack intended to break Concentration, could be a lot of things. It's all part of the craft of DMing.

Are you saying that you expect DM's to be bad at exercising objectivity and fairness in choosing NPC actions? Are you saying that even if the NPC doesn't make their check, you expect that the DM is going to be incapable of playing that out appropriately? Is that right?

So you roll for every spell the PCs cast or only the spells that you would like to counterspell?
Rolling can be fun, personally in this instance I don't believe it is necessary or fun - rather implement a passive arcana check to see if the caster recognised the spell. Fair for all and faster at the table.

Back up the thread I think we reached a point where the proposal was

1. Passive Arcana or Religion DC 12+ spell level (or should this be slot level) to know the name
2. Active Arcana or Religion Dc 12 + spell level (or should this be spell level?) to know the level of spell slot it was cast with and any metamagic

Intelligence (Arcana) for arcane spells
Intelligence (Religion) for divine spells

 

[lkwpeter]

1. Passive Arcana or Religion DC 12+ spell level (or should this be slot level) to know the name

I still see a problem that the DM needs to compare Arcana scores for ANY spell you cast. But apart from that, I like that ruling.

In addition, I would definitely allow casting Counterspell without knowing the initial spell name and/or slot, because the description of Counterspell doesn't mention that you need to know that.

2. Active Arcana or Religion Dc 12 + spell level (or should this be spell level?) to know the level of spell slot it was cast with and any metamagic.

I also like that.

Dc 12 + spell level (or should this be spell level?)

In both cases, I would pick spell level (not slot level), because the main parts/components of the spell won't change, if you cast it using a higher slot. So, an opponent will easily identify the spell, even if he can only cast the basic spell.