D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Mistwell]

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

Yes that's what I would do as well. Sort of similar to the Use an Object action being combined with the melee attack action for drawing your weapon and hitting someone with it.

 

[Gadget]

Just like one can cast shield to foil an attack after one is hit by an attack (but before damage is rolled), I would let the mage PC spend a reaction to counterspell after the DM calls for a save.

DM: "The NPC casts a spell. A sickly green ray flashes from the Witch King's hand toward the cleric, roll a dex save or take xdy damage.
wizard PC: "I counterspell the Witch King's spell".

He may not know that the NPC just cast Disintegrate, but he's pretty sure its bad, whatever it is, and the NPC is not trying to clear off a smudge on the Cleric's cloak. If you want to spend time trying to figure out exactly what spell the NPC is casting, well, that's another thing. Usually description and the call for a save is enough to give the PCs enough of a clue.

DM: "A small red bead proceeds from Ugash the Unliving's hand and flashes toward the party. Roll a dex save for halve of 6d6 damage."
PC: "I Couterspell" <dice rolls>
DM: "The bead simply fluffs out with no effect about half-way to your position."

This way keeps it more 'real' in my mind, while still allowing the PC's to metagame a little and make a decision to Counterspell.

 

[gyor]

Using this rule makes counterspell unusable. How did internal playtesters Miss that.

Villian: cast spell.
You: Identify the Casting as a reaction.
You: Go to cast CounterSpell only to realize you have no reaction left to cast before the Villuan completes it.
Villian: casts finger of death, kills you, but at least you knew you were about to die from finger of death, pooe consultation for the Zombie you become.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ok, something else came to my mind since my previous post...

I do not actually know what the text says about this optional rule in XGtE, so please someone who already has the book can clarify that!

What if this "identify a spell as a reaction" rule is supposed to be used ONLY for spells you've never seen before?

Not knowing the actual text at all, the rule could be grounded in either of the following general assumptions:

a) You normally cannot tell what spell is being cast by someone (at least, not until it's too late). Therefore, you need this new "identify" (re)action in the game to be able to do so pretty much every time. This implies that Counterspell or Shield can only be cast "blindly" i.e. without knowing your opponent's spell.

b) You normally can tell what spell is being cast by someone, unless the spell is unknown to you. Here every gaming group can "dial" on what does it mean for a spell to be "unknown": certainly a spell you can cast is known, but it's not written in stone whether every spell on your class list counts as known (for this purpose) before your character can cast it.

I must say that so far I have run the game inconsistently, because sometimes I say things like "she waves her hand and say a strange word... and suddenly you're engulfed by fire!", and other times I just say "she casts fireball" :/ The point being, the first time it sounds cool to be vague, the next time it's already an old joke.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Using this rule makes counterspell unusable. How did internal playtesters Miss that.

Villian: cast spell.
You: Identify the Casting as a reaction.
You: Go to cast CounterSpell only to realize you have no reaction left to cast before the Villuan completes it.
Villian: casts finger of death, kills you, but at least you knew you were about to die from finger of death, pooe consultation for the Zombie you become.

It's not unusable. It just requires teamwork. PC A identifies the spell, uses a free action to call it out, and PC B casts Counterspell.

That said, the above is a bit clunky so I'd much rather use the suggestion made upthread where the identify is part if the same reaction to cast counterspell. Having to pick one spell to identify in a 6 second round makes sense to me (as opposed to being able to identify potentially dozens of spells being cast nearly simultaneously in the same 6 second period).

 

[CapnZapp]

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]

This all sounds complicated and fiddly.

Why not simply ignore the XGE suggestion?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Dried]

I think I will tweak this rule also for my futur games.
Personally I'd use :
- you can use identify and counterspell in the same reaction. But only if you succeed to identify it (if you miss it means for example, you take too long to identify the spell and it's too late).

I think the risk/reward situation is far better like this: you have to choose between guessing the spell and cast counterspell at a high enough level or try to identify it to cast the counterspell at the exact level it needs but maybe lose your possibility to counterspell in the process.

(sorry for my English I'm French and it's my first post here )

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If a wizard needs to spend a reaction to identify a spell being cast, does that mean a fighter needs to spend a reaction to identify a weapon being wielded?

"Hey guys get down! That goblin is aiming a...what's it called--crossbow! That's it!--at us!"

 

[Bitbrain]

An actual event that happened in a previous session with my group:

Main DM: "on their turn, the three death-storm priests are going to cast spells. Everyone make a Dex save"
Me: "will you let me twin counterspell?"
Main DM: "sure! Two of the priests' spells fizzle out"
Fiendlock: "I use my reaction to make an arcana check and see what spell--"
War Cleric and Ranger: "you ****ing idiot! Just counterspell it like he did!"
Fiendlock: "but don't you wanna know what spell--"
War Cleric: "No!"

 

[CapnZapp]

Welcome to the forums!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app