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

[Ristamar]

You can see that you're offering a strawman, right? I don't need to argue that identifying a spell is "the ultimate purpose" of either skill in order to argue that it is worth using them for this purpose. In play at the table, I see Stealth, Perception, Athletics, Persuasion checks being called for again and again. Why not give Arcana and Religion some extra mileage?

It's not my strawman. You claimed that those skills

don't do anything mechanically relevant

which (unless I grossly misunderstood) infers you're trying to find a use for them because they lack purpose in your game. If they are useful in your game without the need for a Counterspell identification mechanic, I'm not sure why you'd need to create one in order to make the player feel better about the choice.

Regardless, my argument is with defining it as a reward. It's a DM imposed limitation on a spell that doesn't exist within the rules. That doesn't mean it isn't good for tables trying impose restrictions on caster abilities. But if I'm a player at your table that likes to Counterspell, don't make me jump through hoops that didn't previously exist and then tell me you're doing me a favor.

EDIT: I'm obviously approaching this from the angle that players typically know the relevant information when using their abilities unless otherwise specified within the rules. If you never allow anyone to recognize a spell as it is being cast, then your mechanic would certainly be a reward.

 

[clearstream]

It's not my strawman. You claimed that those skills

which (unless I grossly misunderstood) infers you're trying to find a use for them because they lack purpose in your game. If they are useful in your game without the need for a Counterspell identification mechanic, I'm not sure why you'd need to create one in order to make the player feel better about the choice.

You used the term "ultimate purpose", right? That's a long way from saying it's worthwhile to give them mechanical relevance. I think those skills have several purposes. Most of those purposes aren't mechanically relevant. This one is.

Regardless, my argument is with defining it as a reward. It's a DM imposed limitation on a spell that doesn't exist within the rules. That doesn't mean it isn't good for tables trying impose restrictions on caster abilities. But if I'm a player at your table that likes to Counterspell, don't make me jump through hoops that didn't previously exist and then tell me you're doing me a favor.

IIRC nothing in the rules about casting and Counterspells tells a character what the spell being cast is. Far from making a character jump through hoops that didn't previously exist, we're giving them a way to use a relevant skill to discern something that per RAW they can't otherwise know.

Alternatively, could you draw to my attention where the RAW tells you that you know what is being cast?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By "reward" I mean that if a player chose those skills instead of say Stealth and Perception at character creation, they'll probably feel happy that they pay off by giving me mechanically relevant information. Think about the alternative: those skills don't do anything mechanically relevant?

It's kind of like buying a ticket, and being told that actually no one needs a ticket. And that guy - yes him - has invested in Stealth, Perception, Persuasion and Athletics and you know what? He can tell what spells are as they are being cast, just as quickly and well as you can.

It's a fair point, but it's also a slippery slope. The average wizard only has four skills, of which one is Perception. (Everyone always takes Perception.) If you're saying that Arcana and Religion are also necessary for them to use their basic class abilities, then that leaves them one skill with which to customize their character.

Pathfinder ran into similar issues, with... I think it was either Dispel Magic or Identify, something like that... where it required both Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana in order to do anything. You either invested the majority of your skill points into keeping both of those skills maxed out, or you had to give up fulfilling a significant party role. It was pretty stifling, given the sheer volume of options in Pathfinder, to be forced into certain narrow channels if you wanted to remain effective.

 

[Ristamar]

You used the term "ultimate purpose", right? That's a long way from saying it's worthwhile to give them mechanical relevance. I think those skills have several purposes. Most of those purposes aren't mechanically relevant. This one is.

By my personal interpretation, if a skill allows you to do something you otherwise wouldn't be able to accomplish (automatically or with a die roll), it's mechanically relevant. However, Arcana and Religion aren't hard wired into any core RAW systems beyond ability checks, so if that doesn't meet your standard, I suppose they aren't mechanically relevant to you.

IIRC nothing in the rules about casting and Counterspells tells a character what the spell being cast is. Far from making a character jump through hoops that didn't previously exist, we're giving them a way to use a relevant skill to discern something that per RAW they can't otherwise know.

Alternatively, could you draw to my attention where the RAW tells you that you know what is being cast?

As I appended to my previous post, I'm approaching this from the angle that players typically know the relevant information when using their abilities unless otherwise specified. For DMs that obfuscate all spellcasting information, any avenue that would allow them to gain information would be a reward. Coming from a blind starting point, my objection to the term "reward" is definitely nonsensical.

At best, I would say the rules typically state when the player is not privy to certain information regarding a class ability modifying or interacting with another feature. Otherwise, it generally assumes the player knows the relevant information. Not RAW, but consistent with established design within 5e, IMO, YMMV, etc.

If nothing else, Crawford's house rule allows a caster to automatically identify any spell (at its base level) being cast if it is on their respective spell list(s): https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/0...the-spells-level-of-the-opponent-spellcaster/

At this time, however, RAW is nebulous so my presumptuousness was unwarranted. My apologies. I blame it on today being a rainy Monday and a notable lack of sleep.

 

[Satyrn]

(Everyone always takes Perception.)

It's taken by about a quarter of the characters at my table.

And about one-tenth of the characters I make over the last 3 editions of this game (counting either of 3e's Spot and Listen), none of which have been my 5e characters.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

It's a fair point, but it's also a slippery slope. The average wizard only has four skills, of which one is Perception. (Everyone always takes Perception.) If you're saying that Arcana and Religion are also necessary for them to use their basic class abilities, then that leaves them one skill with which to customize their character.

Pathfinder ran into similar issues, with... I think it was either Dispel Magic or Identify, something like that... where it required both Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana in order to do anything. You either invested the majority of your skill points into keeping both of those skills maxed out, or you had to give up fulfilling a significant party role. It was pretty stifling, given the sheer volume of options in Pathfinder, to be forced into certain narrow channels if you wanted to remain effective.

Your point is well taken. However, I do believe that the "bounded accuracy" built into 5th edition helps mitigate this problem. Even a non-proficient character has a decent (not fantastic) chance to succeed on an Arcana check if they have a high intelligence (as most wizards should). Of course sorcerers and other Charisma-based casters are going to find it difficult.

 

[clearstream]

By my personal interpretation, if a skill allows you to do something you otherwise wouldn't be able to accomplish (automatically or with a die roll), it's mechanically relevant. However, Arcana and Religion aren't hard wired into any core RAW systems beyond ability checks, so if that doesn't meet your standard, I suppose they aren't mechanically relevant to you.

Maybe we need a better definition of when to use knowledge skills? The PHB guides to call for checks when something has a chance of failure. That's circular because - when we make something a check - it has a chance of failure. The DMG offers a more robust guide - make a check when failure has a meaningful consequence. Knowing or not knowing the spell when thinking about Counterspelling has a meaningful consequence. So for me it's a textbook case.

At best, I would say the rules typically state when the player is not privy to certain information regarding a class ability modifying or interacting with another feature. Otherwise, it generally assumes the player knows the relevant information. Not RAW, but consistent with established design within 5e, IMO, YMMV, etc.

If nothing else, Crawford's house rule allows a caster to automatically identify any spell (at its base level) being cast if it is on their respective spell list(s): https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/0...the-spells-level-of-the-opponent-spellcaster/

At this time, however, RAW is nebulous so my presumptuousness was unwarranted. My apologies. I blame it on today being a rainy Monday and a notable lack of sleep.

Hey don't worry about it. I hope your Tuesday is much better! Let's look at Crawford's rulings...

1) If the spell is on your spell list, you identify it. So a Wizard can't identify Hex. I don't hate it, but I can't tell you precisely which spells are on what list. Not in the midst of running an encounter. I'd rather throw dice than open the book. Also, do I have zero chance of recognising a spell that I've seen the party Warlock cast a million times? Or... do I get an Arcana check?! If I get the check, why the heck not just use it ubiquitously? I think we're forced to include zero chance is right: no check allowed.

2) You don't know the level it is cast at. Again, I don't hate it. You know a Fireball is coming, but what level slot do you want to use to try and stop it. A lot of Counterspells are going to fizzle this way. Is that good? Again we have to ask, is there zero chance I can know the slot level? If there is a chance and we call for a check, why not just use it ubiquitously? Because players will foreseeably always want to slot level. Again, we're forced to include zero chance is right: no check allowed.

3) Crawford is silent here on metamagic.

Fundamentally, my goal for Counterspelling is to produce information hiding and asymmetry. Crawford's rulings do that, so to that extent I'm fine with them. Do they do that better and faster than throwing dice? Depends how good your memory is. Should casting level always be hidden? Not sure, but it could work great that way: knowing the spell and not the level could create tense decisions.

Passive to know the spell name, active to get the slot level (and name if you don't already have it). Saves a bit of looking up spell lists. Might mean you sometimes have the name but not the casting level. The two methods are pretty similar. Rolling delivers on a secondary objective (knowledge skills are useful). It's a close call.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Maybe a graded check? So something like 10+SL (passive or active) for the spell name (or just give it, if it's on the spell list), 15+SL for slot, and 20+SL for metamagic? That way it rewards those who invest in Arcana with more information, but doesn't punish those who don't by giving them a fairly good chance of at least identifying the spell for Counterspell, if not always the slot and metamagic.

 

[clearstream]

Maybe a graded check? So something like 10+SL (passive or active) for the spell name (or just give it, if it's on the spell list), 15+SL for slot, and 20+SL for metamagic? That way it rewards those who invest in Arcana with more information, but doesn't punish those who don't by giving them a fairly good chance of at least identifying the spell for Counterspell, if not always the slot and metamagic.

Hmm... but is that going to be troublesome to DM? I say that because several ability checks have a "fail-by-5" rider and I'm constantly forgetting those. Is there a way to frame it that makes it easy to remember?

 

[KahlessNestor]

Hmm... but is that going to be troublesome to DM? I say that because several ability checks have a "fail-by-5" rider and I'm constantly forgetting those. Is there a way to frame it that makes it easy to remember?

Well, it's the rule from Pathfinder for knowledge checks basically. You get one extra question for every 5 you beat the DC. 5e basically just has 3 DCs (10, 15, 20). Spell level is easy to recall, given it's on the stat block.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app