Sage Advice: Jeremy Crawford on Ability Checks & What They're Not

A new Sage Advice column has arrived. In this one, Jeremy Crawford discusses ability checks and spellcasting. Questions include whether attack rolls and saves are basically ability checks (no), whether the hex spell's target has disadvantage on attacks and saves which use the chosen ability (no), whether the bard's Jack of All Trades feature applies to attacks and saves (no), and whether an ability check to grapple or shove is an attack roll (no).

He goes on to answer questions on spellcasting limits, lines of sight, and cantrip scaling.

Find the article here.

​

 

[redrick]

That's they way I'm going to run it, you want to stop them from casting a spell, do it or don't. IMHO a reaction is far too little time to piece together what set of hand gestures, words of power and potential materials from over all the potential ways people learn spells.

Counterspell burns a level 3 spell slot, so, until you have a pretty high level party, we're talking about a serious resource. I think it's fair to allow players to use the spell knowing that they're counterspelling something worthwhile. I'd probably use a mechanic similar to things like lucky or other re-roll features. You have to cast the spell before you know if it will hit/how much damage it will do. As opposed to Shield, which allows you to know a spell would have hit before you cast it.

(And, since I usually roll my attacks, damage and narration all at the same time, I'd just say that they have to make this call before they start comparing my dice to numbers on their character sheet. If I see that "subtracting numbers in my head" look, it is too late to counterspell.)

I also don't know how my players would ever cast counterspell if I made them declare it before they knew the spell. They'd have to be pretty fast on the draw.

"The wizard casts --"

"I CAST COUNTERSPELL!!!"

" -- animal friendship."

"huh."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's they way I'm going to run it, you want to stop them from casting a spell, do it or don't. IMHO a reaction is far too little time to piece together what set of hand gestures, words of power and potential materials from over all the potential ways people learn spells.

"Avada kedav--"

 

[Mephistopheles]

When I see that there's no way to mechanic for identifying a spell, it seems more reasonable to me that identification is automatic. For example, the verbal component of a spell might clearly name the spell to any who can hear.

The alternative supposition - that it's impossible to tell what a spell is, while it is being cast - seems unreasonable to me. For a game that is marketed to new players, I don't think they would create such a deep level of meta-game.

I wasn't necessarily advocating for the position in my post, I was just working through it based on what I could find in the books in response to the point raised in the Sage Advice column.

Having said that, I don't think it's more reasonable that the knowledge of which spell is being cast is automatic, but it is the more gentle interpretation. I do agree that for a group of new players it would be preferable to play it as you've suggested. For a more experienced group I think I'd make it a group decision as it will work both for and against the players; although to be fair, it would probably work more in the NPCs favour than the PCs - even if the players don't disclose what they're casting until the DM decides whether to counter, over the course of the game the DM will be better able to guess what spells the PCs will use than the other way around.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Counterspell burns a level 3 spell slot, so, until you have a pretty high level party, we're talking about a serious resource. I think it's fair to allow players to use the spell knowing that they're counterspelling something worthwhile. I'd probably use a mechanic similar to things like lucky or other re-roll features. You have to cast the spell before you know if it will hit/how much damage it will do. As opposed to Shield, which allows you to know a spell would have hit before you cast it.

You have a point about resources, which is why I think the counter game is one that would come to the fore towards the end of the second tier onwards as increased resources become available.

As for wasting counterspells on trivial magic, I'd argue that in situations where a caster would consider counterspelling there would be reasonable expectations that the enemy is casting something that will cause significant harm or multiply the force of the enemy side. I guess it's situational, but I'm not sure baiting the counterspell would be worth wasting the opportunity to get a spell out that will have impact.

 

[Smoo]

Are there situations other than this counterspell one in which a character could use their reaction on their own turn? The reaction, to me, was always something that could exclusively be used on other character's turns and never on your own. That would shut down the counterspell of a counterspell.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Are there situations other than this counterspell one in which a character could use their reaction on their own turn?

Parry / Shield type reactions can be used to protect against OAs.

 

[ad_hoc]

Parry / Shield type reactions can be used to protect against OAs.

It's a reaction to something happening. You can even react to yourself jumping off a cliff to cast Feather Fall.

As for what you know about the spell being cast, if not identifying the spell outright, I would give at least a chance to know what spell level is being used.

I would probably ask for an arcana check

10+ = spell level used known
15+ = school known
20+ = spell known

Advantage if the spell is on your class spell list and you have the level necessary to learn it. Automatic success if you know the spell.

Something like that anyway.

 

[ehenning]

As for counterspell while you are casting your own spell, wouldn't that be impractical as you are already in the middle of your spell? You can't cast two spells simultaneously, right?

 

[miniaturehoarder]

As for counterspell while you are casting your own spell, wouldn't that be impractical as you are already in the middle of your spell? You can't cast two spells simultaneously, right?

Crawford thinks one can and the rules text does not seem to expressly contradict that.

Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.

SInce Counterspell is just Somatic, I could see one making the argument that you'd need a second hand free if the original spell had Somatic / Material components.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As for counterspell while you are casting your own spell, wouldn't that be impractical as you are already in the middle of your spell? You can't cast two spells simultaneously, right?

That was my logic, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the rules. Casting is only limited by action economy and spell slots.