D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Warmaster Horus]

There is a suggested method for identifying a spell being cast in XGtE that requires you to use a reaction (or a following action) to roll an Intelligence(Arcana) check to determine what is being cast.

This really messes up Counterspell in common play. Since both determining the spell and casting Counterspell require the same reaction to the original spell being cast it gets pretty messy. I've had some DMs who just say, "This NPC is casting a spell", to which you then have to decide with no other info about whether your spellcaster will react with Counterspell. Interestingly enough those same DMs seem to cast Counterspell from the NPC's end after I had announced what I was casting.

While there are some who will say this 'realistic', I differ in that opinion. I'd rather have dramatic. For example, look at the capstone event of Critical Role's final battle vs Vecna and you'll see why it would be drastically different and not nearly as satisfying if the 'reaction to identify' rule had been in place.

So in my mind, here's how it will go.
Case 1
DM: The NPC casts a spell.
Wizard: I use my reaction to determine what the spell is! [Rolls an Arcana check]
DM: You succeed. It's a Disintegrate aimed at you! Make a Dex save.

Case 2
DM: The NPC casts a spell.
Wizard: I cast a spell as a Reaction. [note, the player shouldn't have to reveal their spell until the DM decides if they're going to Counterspell]
DM: The NPC casts a spell as a Reaction. [because why not cast Counterspell against a spell being cast as a reaction to his]
Sorcerer: I cast a spell as a Reaction.
DM: Another NPC casts a spell as a Reaction. [and so on...]

Do you see the disadvantage that the first Counterspell caster has? That's right, they don't know what spell they're countering while everyone else knows that ensuing spells will be Counterspells. This is dumb.

My fix would be to force a character to use their reaction to identify a spell being cast using Intelligence(Arcana) using standard parameters per the suggested rule. AND, if they want to, use that same reaction to cast a reaction spell. They're still burning the reaction whether they cast Counterspell or not for that particular action and it requires some acumen (Arcana check) to identify the spell.

Case 3 (my fix)
DM: The NPC casts a spell.
Wizard: I use my Reaction to determine what spell is being cast. [Rolls an Arcana Check and based on that decision decides whether to cast Counterspell]

 

[Azzy]

Personally, I would have the identification as part of the same reaction as the counterspell.

 

[jgsugden]

I want to hear the thoughts of the designers on the intent behind the interaction with counterspell. Was there a discussion of how it would impact counterspell or did they not consider it? I think they knew counterspell would be 'weakened' by these rules and thought that was ok. I'll give that a try before changing anything.

 

[Caliban]

Yeah, I'm gonna ignore that. I always let the PC identify a spell automatically if it is one they can cast themselves, or make a free action Arcana check to identify it if it isn't.

 

[pdegan2814]

Personally, I would have the identification as part of the same reaction as the counterspell.

I like this as the way to go, I would also make allowances for people trying to recognize a spell that they are already familiar with, be it one on their own list, one that a party member casts frequently, etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

It makes me wonder how WotC designers have also been playing with Shield vs Magic Missile in their games...

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I personally like the 'Know it if it's on your spell list' or Free Action Arcana check otherwise method.

 

[thethain]

It makes me wonder how WotC designers have also been playing with Shield vs Magic Missile in their games...

Obviously their familiar uses its reaction to identify the spell and the wizard uses his telepathic link to gain that information.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, I'm gonna ignore that. I always let the PC identify a spell automatically if it is one they can cast themselves, or make a free action Arcana check to identify it if it isn't.

That's the way I do it as well.

It makes me wonder how WotC designers have also been playing with Shield vs Magic Missile in their games...

That was my first thought too. The Shield Spell says you can trigger it (as a reaction) if you are targeted by the magic missile spell. How can this possibly work if knowing you are being targeted by the MM spell requires a reaction?

Identifying a spell as anything but free action (during combat) just leads to too many weird situations. Combat is fluid enough that seeing someone doing something shouldn't require an action. Now acting upon that knowledge (or reacting as you will) is a different story and seems fully covered by the above ruling.

 

[extralead]

Best Enworld thread. Kudos.