D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide: How does identifying a spell + Counterspell work?

[Iry]

I don't mind a reaction to identify a spell, since it cuts down on a flurry of multiple players rolling whenever someone casts a spell. But I don't like counterspell being a two party spotter situation. So I'm probably going to let my players counterspell in the same reaction they use to identify the spell (succeed or fail).

 

[5ekyu]

I don't mind a reaction to identify a spell, since it cuts down on a flurry of multiple players rolling whenever someone casts a spell. But I don't like counterspell being a two party spotter situation. So I'm probably going to let my players counterspell in the same reaction they use to identify the spell (succeed or fail).

So counterspell is a non-action if used after you identify a spell being cast with your reaction but a reaction if you just cast it blind without knowing what the opposing spell is?

 

[Tormyr]

So counterspell is a non-action if used after you identify a spell being cast with your reaction but a reaction if you just cast it blind without knowing what the opposing spell is?

I seem to remember several features that allow you to add something when you take an action, particularly the Attack action. This would be a modification of the Identify a Spell reaction to allow you to follow up with another reaction to a creature casting a spell.

Really it just removes the choice between identifying a Spell or using a different reaction, something that did not exist until Xanathar's added it as an optional rule. This helps more than just counterspell. A mage slayer can decide whether it wants to use its reaction based on whether or not the mage cast a concentration spell for example. If its a concentration spell, they attack to help remove concentration. Otherwise they might hold their reaction for something else.

 

[mikebr99]

Hi all,
If this rule is put in place, then I think you should get +2/spell level above 3rd to the ability check for using a more powerful slot in the counter process.

I.E. I'm using a 5th level slot to counter a 7th level spell (which I didn't get advanced notice of)... I should get +4 to the ability check to counter this spell.

Thoughts?


Mike

 

[Dausuul]

Hi all,
If this rule is put in place, then I think you should get +2/spell level above 3rd to the ability check for using a more powerful slot in the counter process.

I.E. I'm using a 5th level slot to counter a 7th level spell (which I didn't get advanced notice of)... I should get +4 to the ability check to counter this spell.

Thoughts?

Doesn't solve the problem.

The problem with the new rule is not that it nerfs counterspell; frankly, counterspell could use a nerfing. The problem is that it bogs down spellcasting in play. You can't just announce your spell any more, you have to say "I cast a spell, any reactions?" And then if someone wants to counterspell, they have to say, "I cast a spell in reaction to your spell, any reactions?" And then if the original caster wants to counter-counter, they say "I cast a spell in reaction to your spell that's in reaction to my spell, any reactions?" And then you reveal the spells and resolve them in reverse order. Even if no one is deliberately "Schrodinger's spell"-cheating, by the time you unwind it all, you'll have forgotten what was originally being cast.

Every other defensive reaction spell lets you know what's going on before you react. You know what AC your enemy hit when you cast shield. You know how much damage you're taking when you cast absorb elements. Unless it's dark or otherwise obscured, you know how high up you are when you cast feather fall. This may strain verisimilitude a bit, but it allows play to proceed efficiently and simply. If you have a response, you jump in and use it; everyone else does not have to change how they do things because you might have a response.

(Hey, anybody know how the new rule interacts with shield, which allows you to cast it in response to being targeted by magic missile? Do you also have to cast shield blindly? Or do you get to wait until you see the missiles incoming?)

 

[Caliban]

(Hey, anybody know how the new rule interacts with shield, which allows you to cast it in response to being targeted by magic missile? Do you also have to cast shield blindly? Or do you get to wait until you see the missiles incoming?)

I don't believe this affects the shield spell.

The shield spell is cast as a reaction "when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell", while counterspell is a reaction to them casting the spell. So shield is after the enemy's spellcasting action is completed, while counterspell attempts to disrupt their spell before it is completed.

Technically you don't even need to see the attack that hits you or the magic missiles. You somehow (literally by magic!) are able to react between the time you know you are hit (either by an attack or magic missiles) but before any damage is applied.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't believe this affects the shield spell.

The shield spell is cast as a reaction "when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell", while counterspell is a reaction to them casting the spell. So shield is after the enemy's spellcasting action is completed, while counterspell attempts to disrupt their spell before it is completed.

Technically you don't even need to see the attack that hits you or the magic missiles. You somehow (literally by magic!) are able to react between the time you know you are hit (either by an attack or magic missiles) but before any damage is applied.

Except that, per the Xanathar rule, you don't know what a spell was even after casting is completed. If you don't roll that Arcana check, it will remain forever a mystery. I guess magic missile now has a special exemption. Or maybe you have to declare "I cast shield" after every spell, and if the DM says "You find yourself unable to cast shield," then you know the spell either wasn't magic missile or didn't target you.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

One thing that bugs me about this optional rule is that it completely nerfs one of the most legendary dramatic acts in recent RPG history - Scanlan's use of Counterspell in the penultimate episode of the VM arc in Critical Role. It also bothers me that high level wizards with massive bonuses to arcana have zero chance of telling a Magic Missile spell from a Disintigrate without using a reaction or action.

Finally it only disadvantages the initial Counterspell caster - the original caster knows damn well what spell is being cast if an opposing caster reacts to their spell, with some exceptions, and any other Counterspelling casters know that any spells after the initial spell are probably Counterspell. Only the caster who reacts to another's initial spell and hence need to determine whether they are going to cast, and at what level, in the blind. This is a huge disadvantage compared to other casters in the exchange.

 

[Tormyr]

Hi all,
If this rule is put in place, then I think you should get +2/spell level above 3rd to the ability check for using a more powerful slot in the counter process.

I.E. I'm using a 5th level slot to counter a 7th level spell (which I didn't get advanced notice of)... I should get +4 to the ability check to counter this spell.

Thoughts?


Mike

I don't really like it, but that has more to do with the situation that Xanathar's has created rather than the merits of your idea. Your idea gives a benefit to casting at higher levels, but it means that a caster likely has a reasonable chance (50/50) of stopping a 9th-level spell with a 7th-level counterspell. A caster might lean toward burning higher-level slots rather than using the lowest possible level all the time. In retrospect, as I think about it, it is probably as good as any other solution.

I get a bit annoyed when a new rule like what Xanathar's introduced makes things seemingly more difficult / slow at the table. The end result In my opinion, creatures should recognize a spell if they have seen it before and realize how powerful it is, but I lean toward things being quick and easy to run at the table. This means that play can proceed without delay and a spell is only unknown the first time it is encountered. The rest of the time, someone declares a spell being cast; creatures use their reaction as a appropriate; and play continues.

The Xanathar's rule seems to rely on keeping players and the DM as in the dark as the creatures they are controlling. There are places where such secrets work for plot and storytelling elements, but I do not really see that as a recipe for success when something is happening at that moment (such as a spell being cast) in a collaborative storytelling environment.

 

[Caliban]

Except that, per the Xanathar rule, you don't know what a spell was even after casting is completed. If you don't roll that Arcana check, it will remain forever a mystery. I guess magic missile now has a special exemption. Or maybe you have to declare "I cast shield" after every spell, and if the DM says "You find yourself unable to cast shield," then you know the spell either wasn't magic missile or didn't target you.

Well, as I stated previously, the Xanathar rule is dumb and shouldn't be used.

But assuming that you are using that optional rule - specific still trumps general. And the shield spell specifically allows itself to be cast in reaction to being targeted by the magic missile spell. You don't have to see them cast it, you could be blind and deaf. Doesn't matter. As long as you are targeted by magic missile and capable of casting, you can cast shield to protect yourself.