Hi,
Xanathar's Guide says:
That means, that it is not possible to anticipate a spell without using either your reaction or action. So, how can you ever specifically Counterspell using your reaction, if you already need your reaction to identify the spell?
You can't.
Seems like Counterspell is only possible at random. Big nerf, isn't it?
For most tables, yep. Crawford has said on Twitter that this is how he always thought of
counterspell working, but there's a pretty wide range of people I've seen on Twitter, Reddit, and here that didn't play this way at all and don't really like it.
Crawford has also said that he would allow another character to use their reaction to identify the spell and then tell another character who could then
counterspell the spell. Why he thinks introducing another person into the mix would take
less time I'm not sure, but there you go. It's a mechanics over narrative answer if ever there was one, which is exactly what I expect from Crawford.
What do you think about it?
I think it's an actively bad rule. Everything about it is fine if spell identification doesn't take a reaction, but the reaction part is actively bad because of how
counterspell is written.
The real problem isn't so much that
counterspell would be random. Although making it 50% random more often does significantly harm the spell -- keep in mind that the 50% chance isn't why
dispel magic was never used to counter spells in previous editions; it's because doing that required a readied action! No, the real problem here is that
it provides incentives for the players and DMs to cheat.
Let me explain the problems:
First, play slows down for the DM's turns -- and not just because of the extra die roll although you do need to consider that as well. When using this rule and the DM casts a spell, instead of saying: "The lich casts
fireball," she now has to say, "The lich casts a spell. Any reactions?"
However, it goes beyond that. Play slows down for the PC's turns, too. See, any spellcaster in the party is likely to eventually say, "Hey, if the players have to make decisions about their characters' reactions without knowing what the spell is, then the DM should be in the same boat for her NPCs." Now the PCs are going to say, "I cast a spell. Do any NPCs have reactions?" Sure, the DM could rule the PCs
must announce the spell, but that's pretty clearly not fair. And, yes, the DM can argue that she's playing every NPC and already has out-of-character knowledge and so will judge fairly, but the PCs can actually argue the same. So now you're back to arguing about why this information is even hidden at all.
Let's say you finally agree that it's most fair for everybody to keep the spell hidden. Well, you've now just secretly encouraged this:
PC: (thinking) I'm going to try casting fireball.
PC: I'm casting a spell. Any reactions?
DM: The lich casts a spell as a reaction. Any reactions?
PCs: No reactions.
DM: The lich casts
counterspell level 3.
PC: (lie) You counter a
magic missile.
Next turn:
PC: (thinking) I'm going to try casting fireball again.
PC: I'm casting a spell. Any reactions?
DM: No reactions.
PC: I cast
fireball.
Yeah. That's some garbage, isn't it? Now, yes, everybody plays with people who are not going to cheat. However, there's a big difference between trusting your group not to cheat, and not adopting rules that allow you to cheat with no real chance of getting caught.
Obviously the DM could similarly lie to the PCs, but, frankly, the above feels even more wrong.
The only fixes I can see are:
1. Make spell identification not require a reaction, but still require that you haven't been prevented from making a reaction (e.g.,
shocking grasp, etc.). This is similar to how the opportunity attacks on Mark works on DMG p271. If you wanted to keep to the spirit of the optional rule, you could say that you're limited to one spell identified in a round. Alternately, you could rule that spell identification uses the "free" reaction wording like some abilities: "This doesn't expend your reaction, but you must not have spent your reaction to do this." There's a dozen ways to word this to work in slightly different ways. Edit: Keep in mind, the
only reason Crawford gave on Twitter for making it take a reaction is because he didn't want to slow down the game for every spell to be identified.
2. Ignore the rule and play how you were. Remember, Xanthar's Guide is full of optional
and alternate rules (with the exception of the 10 rules on page 5). They're not necessarily supposed to be expansions on how you should already be playing the game. Never let a book tell you that the way you're playing the game with all parties happy and having fun is wrong and needs to change. Not even the PHB or DMG trump what you want to do at your table.
Honestly, I feel like it wouldn't feel quite so bad if
counterspell didn't have the "At higher levels" option. I wish the spell hadn't been given that at all. Still, if you remove that you're still not fixing the above cheating problem. What are you going to do for that? Make the player write down what they cast and reveal it after reactions? I guess that would be a reason to buy those spell cards that have been sold out everywhere for a year.
