[5e] Rakshasas cannot be counterspelled (mostly)? Is that how you would play it

Mort · Apr 10, 2019

The wording of counterspell seems to target the caster not the spell "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell..."

Jeremy Crawford has confirmed this.

As such, Rakshasas would be immune to counterspelling (unless the counterspell was cast at 7th level+)

This seems to make the monster (which has some decent spell casting ability) a bit more nasty.

Is this widely accepted? counterpoints?

Just a thought.

PS. As I can't seem to apply any kind of tags in the mobile app - this is referring to 5e.

iserith · Apr 10, 2019

The wording of counterspell could be taken either way in my view, so it's going to depend on the norms at your table. If the spell targeting a creature and not the spell is how you do it, then I'd say you're good - the rakshasa is unaffected unless counterspell is cast at a sufficiently high level. If you rule it the other way or it's never been firmly established one way or another, I suggest nailing that down well before the combat challenge with the rakshasa comes up.

The Crimson Binome · Apr 10, 2019

I would not play it that way, because it feels like it's a technicality of the rules rather than being representative of what makes sense for how the world should work, but I'd discuss it with my players if the situation ever came up.

Li Shenron · Apr 10, 2019

Well, it would make sense to me if there were a special creature or two in the universe who were immune to counterspelling.

TaranTheWanderer · Apr 10, 2019

~~I know nothing about 5e Rakshasas or how counterspelling affects them~~ but, traditionally, in previous editions, these monsters were nasty and nigh invinsible to magic. Giving them the ability to ignore counterspelling seems in line with him w scary they could be. I’m assuming they have magic resistance which isn’t near as powerful as it used to be so, as [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] says above, having a couple creatures with that as a feature seems fine. I’m not sure how that affects their CR.

Edit: read them up. If counterspell affects a creature, they'd be immune. The spell doesn't actually have a target. It doesn't say 'targets a creature casting a spell' or 'one spell'.

It just says, 'if a creature casts a spell'.

I'm not sure I'd go by Crawford's ruling. Thematically and narratively, I don't see counterspelling as hitting a creature and negating their ability to cast. I see it as casting the spell in reverse, or finishing the final syllable of their spell but using a counter-key-word. Which makes sense why you can't counterspell a wand. I see it as an unraveling of the spell.

Yeah...talk to your table.

jgsugden · Apr 10, 2019

RAW: Correct. No counterspelling.
RAI: Unknown, but perhaps intentional.
RAF: That is up to the DM as either approach could work. What tells a better story? I might decide it is more fun to require the ability check (if spell slot is 6 or lower, regardless of the level of the Rakshasa's spell - even cantrips), but to give the caster disadvantage on the roll and perhaps a bumped DC. Unlikely rolls add drama.

Jer · Apr 10, 2019

Mort said:
As such, Rakshasas would be immune to counterspelling (unless the counterspell was cast at 7th level+)

This seems to make the monster (which has some decent spell casting ability) a bit more nasty.

I haven't used rakshasa in my 5e games yet, but I think this interpretation is how I'd play it. Rakshasa are supposed to be nasty wizard killers, and being able to shrug off counterspells will make the most jaded wizard sit up and take notice. But they're not totally immune because, as you say, if the counterspell is 7th level or higher then it affects them normally and even bypasses the saving throw advantage they get from Limited Magical Immunity since the target doesn't get a save - so high-level wizards can still deny them their spells. Flavor-wise that feels right for a rakshasa to me.

Satyrn · Apr 10, 2019

Mort said:
The wording of counterspell seems to target the caster not the spell "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell..."

Jeremy Crawford has confirmed this.

As such, Rakshasas would be immune to counterspelling (unless the counterspell was cast at 7th level+)

This seems to make the monster (which has some decent spell casting ability) a bit more nasty.

Is this widely accepted? counterpoints?

Just a thought.

PS. As I can't seem to apply any kind of tags in the mobile app - this is referring to 5e.

I wouldn't rule that way based on the wording. As [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] says, it feels like a technicality and I just refuse to read 5e that way.

However, I'd totally rule that way now because it sounds like a fun exception for this creature.

Mort · Apr 10, 2019

TaranTheWanderer said:
Yeah...talk to your table.

This has been the advice in a few posts - and normally it's my first go-to.

But this is different:

1) This is about the only case, I can currently think of, that this ruling would even be applicable to.

2) I absolutely do not want to telegraph a rakshasa coming. As a mysterious behind the scenes string puller and unknown foe, these guys can be terrifying. As a known quantity - much less so.

As such, as long as I think it will not be ridiculous and will increase the fun at the table - I'd rather this be holy **&** moment and not a rules discussion. FYI, the group is pretty low level at this point - it'll be a while before this becomes an issue.

Thoughts?

iserith · Apr 10, 2019

Mort said:
This has been the advice in a few posts - and normally it's my first go-to.

But this is different:

1) This is about the only case, I can currently think of, that this ruling would even be applicable to.

2) I absolutely do not want to telegraph a rakshasa coming. As a mysterious behind the scenes string puller and unknown foe, these guys can be terrifying. As a known quantity - much less so.

As such, as long as I think it will not be ridiculous and will increase the fun at the table - I'd rather this be holy **&** moment and not a rules discussion. FYI, the group is pretty low level at this point - it'll be a while before this becomes an issue.

Thoughts?

Without clarifying the way the spell works ahead of time, I think you open up yourself to the possibility for dissatisfaction and a rules debate during what sounds like is an important moment in the adventure or campaign. I suggest doing what you can to head that off at the pass.