D&D 5E Counterspell - Do I know my foes' spell before I counter?

Sadras said:

So you roll for every spell the PCs cast or only the spells that you would like to counterspell?
Rolling can be fun, personally in this instance I don't believe it is necessary or fun - rather implement a passive arcana check to see if the caster recognised the spell. Fair for all and faster at the table.

Click to expand...

First, this comes up relatively rarely. I do not often include NPC spell casters with counterspell on their list. If overused the players at my table find counterspell annoying. But in those rare instances wherean NPC is capable of casting counterspell, I do indeed only roll for spells that would be counterspelled. No point in checking for a cantrip. I could indeed check every time, but the end result would be the same. If the cantrip is recognized, it won't be counterspelled. If the cantrip is NOT recognized it won't be counterspelled. No point in checking.

As to your last comment, a passive check would work fine. I prefer the die roll, but I can absolutely see how others would feel differently.

vonklaude said:

It seems really the same to me. Player does X, I arbitrate what happens. Could be a Counterspell, could be an attack intended to break Concentration, could be a lot of things. It's all part of the craft of DMing.

Are you saying that you expect DM's to be bad at exercising objectivity and fairness in choosing NPC actions? Are you saying that even if the NPC doesn't make their check, you expect that the DM is going to be incapable of playing that out appropriately? Is that right?

Click to expand...

PC is about to cast a spell that would seriously affect the combat. The DM knows the spell.
NPC fails the knowledge roll.
NPC now has to decide whether he would counterspell a spell he does not recognise or take the chance and let it play out.
What does the unobjectionable DM, @vonklaude, decide the NPC does?
Make a 50/50 roll? Counterspell because he failed the knowledge check and would be rightly concerned?

Back up the thread I think we reached a point where the proposal was (snip)

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware - I was answering posters who decided to reply to older posts.
Frankly, in not so many words and without the DCs, I suggested the samething earlier.

Bradley Hindman said:

I could indeed check every time, but the end result would be the same.

Click to expand...

Ofcourse since as DM you always know the spell.

If the cantrip is recognized, it won't be counterspelled. If the cantrip is NOT recognized it won't be counterspelled. No point in checking.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!! So the NPC is not worried the spell is some powerful arcana spell which he never recognised that could seriously turn the tide of battle.
That doesn't even enter the NPC's/DM's mind - WHY? Because THE DM KNOWS IT'S A CANTRIP AND ISN'T WILLING TO WASTE THE COUNTERSPELL ON THE CANTRIP.

I love these fair and unobjectionable DMs in this thread.

From my experience counter spell saves a player from getting nuked or keeps a big baddie from escaping. These are both good situations that make the player doing the counterspelling feel like a hero and generally make all the other players at the table happy.

Why take away this happiness AND slow down the game by adding more Dice rolling or making players guess if they want to counterspelling.

How would you even run this? How slow will it get it I say "the cult leader starts to cast a spell, does anyone want to Religion Check to determine the spell, (rolls are made) okay he is casting spiritual hammer (now comes the discussion on if it's worth countering or not with the fighter very low on hit points arguing that it is).

Nope way too slow for me.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

Sadras said:

Are you, as DM, targetting characters' saving throws they are not proficient in or do you let the combat play out naturally.

Are you, as DM, delibertately targetting characters with fewer hit points, or do you let the combat play out naturally.

Click to expand...

So, first, despite the fact that you have neglected to finish them with '?', these appear to be rhetorical questions. I recommend trying to avoid rhetorical questions in these discussions because a) they generally carry the smell of sarcasm with them (even if not intended), which is not helpful; and b) they can sometimes obscure the point you are trying to make because they do not state the point directly.

In this case, for instance, I would infer from your questions that you would not approve of and would not engage in the behaviors that you were questioning. And it appears that you think that somehow disputes my point. But in fact, that was very much part of my point. So I end up a little confused about what point you were trying to make with your questions.

To restate my point - even though you and I know the PCs' weak saves, we don't (unless we are running a very knowledgeable opponent) have NPC opponents take advantage of that knowledge. Given that, I don't understand why you insist that DMs cannot be trusted to compartmentalize their knowledge of which spells PC are casting as well.

Given that spells can be combat changers, I don't agree that the casting of spells is something minor.

Click to expand...

Ok, 'minor' might be the wrong word. What I meant was knowing what spell the PC is casting is (depending on circumstances, of course) not necessarily any more of an advantage than any of the other myriad things that the DM knows that the NPC opponents don't.

Sure, given the nature of counterspelling where you directly negate a pc's action I think it is quite different to the examples you've listed above, where DM knowledge plays an active in-your-face role.

Click to expand...

I guess we just disagree about this judgement as a generality. Other knowledge, if used to run an opponent NPC, can be just as detrimental to the PCs as knowing which spells they are casting. To me, they seem very similar.

So you roll for every spell the PCs cast or only the spells that you would like to counterspell?
Rolling can be fun, personally in this instance I don't believe it is necessary or fun - rather implement a passive arcana check to see if the caster recognised the spell. Fair for all and faster at the table.

Click to expand...

I think this is a good point - if you're going to roll, then you should roll for all. And using passive may be a good option, too.

Bradley Hindman said:

First, this comes up relatively rarely. I do not often include NPC spell casters with counterspell on their list. If overused the players at my table find counterspell annoying. But in those rare instances wherean NPC is capable of casting counterspell, I do indeed only roll for spells that would be counterspelled. No point in checking for a cantrip. I could indeed check every time, but the end result would be the same. If the cantrip is recognized, it won't be counterspelled. If the cantrip is NOT recognized it won't be counterspelled. No point in checking.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with @Sadras here - that doesn't sound legitimate. But perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps you could expand briefly on why the cantrip would not be counterspelled if not recognized. I guess if the NPC never counterspelled unknown spells, that would be ok.

Sadras said:

PC is about to cast a spell that would seriously affect the combat. The DM knows the spell.
NPC fails the knowledge roll.
NPC now has to decide whether he would counterspell a spell he does not recognise or take the chance and let it play out.

Click to expand...

Yes, just one of the many instances in which a DM has to adjudicate what an NPC with limited knowledge would do.

Make a 50/50 roll? Counterspell because he failed the knowledge check and would be rightly concerned?

Click to expand...

Again, phrasing these as questions leaves your point in doubt. For me, these would both be legitimate options (amongst others). The choice would depend on the situation and the NPC. Do you think these are not legitimate options?

Harzel said:

I have to agree with @Sadras here - that doesn't sound legitimate. But perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps you could expand briefly on why the cantrip would not be counterspelled if not recognized. I guess if the NPC never counterspelled unknown spells, that would be ok.

Click to expand...

I think what you're misunderstanding (assuming I understand!) is what Brad's process is. Specifically, it seems to me that he's saying when he decides to have an NPC counterspell, he has it roll a check to see if he recognizes it as worth counterspelling. Then it's only if (a) the check succeeds that he counterspells a (b) worthy spell.

Since he's already ruled that a cantrip is not a (b) worthy spell, there's no need to figure out (a).

It kinda turns into a "I want to counterspell, may I?" check.

Harzel said:

I have to agree with @Sadras here - that doesn't sound legitimate. But perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps you could expand briefly on why the cantrip would not be counterspelled if not recognized. I guess if the NPC never counterspelled unknown spells, that would be ok.

Click to expand...

Sure. Happy to explain further/better. When I have a NPC who has counterspell on their list, I make the decision of which type of counterspeller they will be prior to the encounter:
1) The NPC counterspells everything, irrespective of whether the spell is recognized or not.
2) The NPC counterspells judiciously. He/she attempts to recognize the spell being cast. If the spell is not recognized, no counterspell. If the spell is recognized, then counterspell is cast if its advantageous to do so.

In the case of a spell like a cantrip that is often not worth counterspelling, I usually don't check to see if the spell is recognized. Why? Because the result is same on any outcome.

If the NPC is type 1: The NPC counters the spell even if its tactically unsound to do so.
If the NPC is type 2: The spell won't be counterspelled if recognized and the spell won't be counterspelled if it is not recognized.

So in this particular situation, I see no point in rolling to see if the spell is recognized or not.

DocMoriartty said:

How would you even run this? How slow will it get it I say "the cult leader starts to cast a spell, does anyone want to Religion Check to determine the spell, (rolls are made) okay he is casting spiritual hammer (now comes the discussion on if it's worth countering or not with the fighter very low on hit points arguing that it is).

Nope way too slow for me.

Click to expand...

At my table, the request for a skill check and the checks themselves would take 10-15 seconds. The tactical discussion about whether counterspelling is a good idea could take half an hour. Telling the players what spell is being cast outright would in fact lead to more time being spent because every spell being cast would elicit such a conversation.