D&D 5E Can counter spell be counter spelled?

[Caliban]

I do however find that:
Casting a spell as a bonus action does prevent you to counterspell, but casting a spell as an action does not;[

Yeah, this strikes me as weird too. I've house ruled it in my game - casting a bonus action spell doesn't prevent you from casting a reaction spell on the same turn. Never had it come up, but I've made the rule just in case it does.

Casting a spell while casting another spell is a thing;

Only the case of a reaction spell such as Counterspell. Reaction spells are just that fast, you can get them off without interrupting what you are currently doing.

Having the above go against pretty much every other part of the phb as much as interrupting actions and order of execution go

No more so than opportunity attack or readied actions do. It's not unique, but it is a kludge to address limitations of the cyclical initiative. Not perfect, but works most of the time.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I do however find that:
Casting a spell as a bonus action does prevent you to counterspell, but casting a spell as an action does not; ...

That's only true during your turn. So you couldn't cast Counterspell on your turn if you cast a Bonus Action spell. But as soon as your turn is over you can cast it.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Only the case of a reaction spell such as Counterspell. Reaction spells are just that fast, you can get them off without interrupting what you are currently doing.

Yeah, the point being that this is THE ONLY CASE this happens. Its really the exception of exceptions on how unique and particular that is. It's WEIRD.
Even in the very strange case of being first in a turn and falling... casting Featherfall (assuming you used your reaction your last round yadda yadda) is not really going to interrupt the rest of your actions in any way whatsoever. (Btw... trigger for Featherfall is "when yadda yadda falls". Does "is falling" still trigger it or once someone is over the edge the trigger is gone and opportunity missed, no matter how long the person is still going to fall?)

No more so than opportunity attack or readied actions do. It's not unique, but it is a kludge to address limitations of the cyclical initiative. Not perfect, but works most of the time.

Opportunity attacks simply go before a movement is attempted that is greater than X, in the grand scheme of things. Movement itself is not "interrupted" (as much one can stop making signs for a spell, look for its target, switch mindset to concentrate from creating a fireball to disrupt magical energies, make some movements with one hand in response to someone else doing the very same thing, and then back to what i was previously doing no questions asked) and can be weaved to be happening in between other actions (No, i do not recognize tunnel fighter existance ) that a person takes.

Ready actions cannot interrupt a trigger. Usually that trigger is usually an action (notice: i meant action as something that someone does, not as Action - i forgot to capitalize in the other post to mark the difference.) and that cannot be interrupted. You can interrupt an Action, but single actions are generally impossible to interrupt. Even the act of spellcasting cannot generally be interrupted by Ready Actions since, let's face it, it requires explicit DM approval and ruling to be done, since all the exaples given in RAW and RAI all mention "casting" as the trigger.

There's already been a discussion about this, so let's not go into it any further here.

That's only true during your turn. So you couldn't cast Counterspell on your turn if you cast a Bonus Action spell. But as soon as your turn is over you can cast it.

Yes, only during your turn. I have problems with interrupting yourself to cast a spell in the first place as a general idea. It is not a problem if its not your turn since you are not really casting anything.
Discussion is all about Counterspelling while casting something else however, so i gave for granted that was the situation to expect when reading my comment

---

I know, in a round really everyone is going at the same time... so it's just as strange to be able to cast a spell at all outside your turn since it tecnically is still "in the same timeframe". I just really can't seem to come to terms with one casting being INSIDE the timeframe of another casting even mechanically and this being ok. I still apply the rule as is and have not said "you need another free hand to counterspell if you are casting" at my table, and doubt i will until a new game starts, if i ever will at all implement it.

I still do find it very weird and really really really one of a kind exception.

 

[Caliban]

Yeah, the point being that this is THE ONLY CASE this happens. Its really the exception of exceptions on how unique and particular that is. It's WEIRD.

I really don't find it "weird". It's not new or unique, similar things existed in previous editions.

Opportunity attacks simply go before a movement is attempted that is greater than X, in the grand scheme of things.

Not true. If someone moves next to you and then moves away, you can interrupt their movement to make an opportunity attack.

If you have the Polearm Mastery feat you can interrupt someone's movement toward you to make an opportunity attack before they reach you.

Reaction spells are an exception to the way things normally work. Shield comes before the attack that triggers it, a Counterspell interrupts the spell it counters, Absorb Element gives you resistance before the damage is applied, etc.

 

[jaelis]

OH SNAP ITS A TURN-BASED SYSTEM!

 

[Yunru]

OH SNAP ITS A TURN-BASED SYSTEM!

IT IS!? MY PARTY AND I WERE JUST YELLING OVER EACH OTHER AND ROLLING OTHER PEOPLES DICE!

 

[ThePolarBear]

I really don't find it "weird". It's not new or unique, similar things existed in previous editions.

It is unique by 5e standards.

Not true. If someone moves next to you and then moves away, you can interrupt their movement to make an opportunity attack.

If you have the Polearm Mastery feat you can interrupt someone's movement toward you to make an opportunity attack before they reach you.

It is true. If i move less than what is required to get out of your reach, i do not trigger an opportunity attack. If i move less than what is required to enter your reach while you have Polearm Master, i do not trigger your Opportunity attack. Mechanically on a grid this is impossible. In the Theater of Mind it is very possible. It is also, in my opinion, the reason behind the difference in description of the abilities in recent UA.
Then again, you can't attack something that is not in reach, so the opportunity attack from Polearm Master has to happen after the movement has been made. And the normal one happens before the movement has been made.

Counterspell a Counterspell that is targeting your spell happens DURING YOUR OWN casting. It cannot happen BEFORE, since then there would be nothing to Counterspell to begin with. It cannot happen AFTER, since there would be nothing to Counterspell. There's NOTHING ELSE in 5e that works this way.

Reaction spells are an exception to the way things normally work. Shield comes before the attack that triggers it, a Counterspell interrupts the spell it counters, Absorb Element gives you resistance before the damage is applied, etc.

Reactions in general are exceptions to the way things normally work. Shield has effect on the attack that triggers it, but this does not mean that the casting YOU do for shield happens at the same time of something else YOU are doing. I have no problems with that. I can imagine a wizard doing so while moving or fighting. I have problems with imagining a wizard pointing a finger at a point and AT THE SAME TIME raising the middle finger to counter a middle finger raised on the other side of the hall WITH THE SAME HAND.

I hope you see how i think this is different and why i find it weird. It's already "unnatural" to think in turns. If now during the same turn, while you are taking an action (lower case) you can take another action that requires the same resources and do so at the same time... no, that's too much for my poor brain

 

[Caliban]

It is unique by 5e standards.

So?

I hope you see how i think this is different and why i find it weird. It's already "unnatural" to think in turns. If now during the same turn, while you are taking an action (lower case) you can take another action that requires the same resources and do so at the same time... no, that's too much for my poor brain

Not really. Or at least no weirder than any other other quirky bits of the rules. Maybe I'm just used to similar things from previous editions or other games. It just doesn't strike me as all that weird. It's not like it's the first time a piece of a sub-system has had a further unique ruling associated with it. I mean, yes, reaction spells are unique compared to the rest of the possible actions and Counterspell could be considered even more unique in that instead of coming before or after the trigger it interrupts the triggering action itself.

But D&D has always had unique sub-systems for certain things. In 3e initiating a Grapple pulled both characters into a strange world that ignored all the normal rules of combat. In 3e readied actions could come before, during, or after the triggering event (that's one way you could interrupt spellcasting).

In 5e, Grappling and Shoving are still weird - they replace an individual attack, but only when you are taking the attack action (not an attack made as a bonus action or opportunity attack, unless a feat or ability specifically grants the ability to do them as a bonus action). Yet they are not an attack, they are an opposed skill check.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Again I'm behind this all the way except for one Counterspell being, in effect, beginning-to-end faster than another.

Why is that weird to you? If you have a sequence of magical runes, and deactivating the runes requires you to erase half of them, then a longer sequence would take longer to erase half of it. Why shouldn't the parameters of a Counterspell take into account the spell being countered? Whenever I've read about spellcasters countering spells in fiction, they're always pulling apart the energy patterns that their opponent is weaving, which requires a different process for every spell being cast.

The only time I've seen a single, universal Counterspell - that doesn't (necessarily) depend on the spell being countered - is in MtG. And D&D is supposed to make more sense, with closer reflection of genre conventions, than a card game. You shouldn't automatically expect that Counterspell is literally the same discrete entity which happens to work on every single spell being cast.

As for the rest of the issues, they're solved by the example I explained. If you're countering the spell after the chanting and gesturing, while it's in flight to its target, then the caster is physically capable of casting another spell because the part that would render them exclusive (the verbal and somatic components) are over. So it doesn't necessarily defy internal game-world logic, unless you choose an in-game reality where it would; you only see the conflict because you choose to see an in-game reality where the spell is being countered while the chanting and gesturing are still happening.

It's a lot like the problem I had with 4E, and again with 5E, regarding heal times. If I choose to describe damage as bloody gashes, then it doesn't make sense for that to go away in a couple of hours. The problem isn't with the system - both systems are fairly consistent(ish) in their in-game causal logic - it's just that their logic doesn't match up with what I want it to be. In order for everything to make sense, either I need to get on board with how they are doing things, or I need to update the rules to reflect what I want them to be.

You have the same choice: either get on board and change your perspective of what's happening in the game world, or change the rules to reflect the model you're actually using.

 

[Lanefan]

Why is that weird to you? If you have a sequence of magical runes, and deactivating the runes requires you to erase half of them, then a longer sequence would take longer to erase half of it. Why shouldn't the parameters of a Counterspell take into account the spell being countered? Whenever I've read about spellcasters countering spells in fiction, they're always pulling apart the energy patterns that their opponent is weaving, which requires a different process for every spell being cast.

The only time I've seen a single, universal Counterspell - that doesn't (necessarily) depend on the spell being countered - is in MtG. And D&D is supposed to make more sense, with closer reflection of genre conventions, than a card game. You shouldn't automatically expect that Counterspell is literally the same discrete entity which happens to work on every single spell being cast.

Except that in D&D Counterspell is itself defined as a spell, which by extension means it should use the same rules, mechanics and framework that all the other spells use...which means that yes, it is the same discrete entity every time. (Fluff rationale idea: it briefly cuts off the caster's access to magical energy* and thus disrupts casting) Which also means that two Counterspells cast in rapid succession are logically going to resolve in the same order in which they were cast, just like (in slightly slower motion) two Fireballs would.

Now if instead of being an actual spell, Counterspell was an inherent ability granted to some or all wizards (say, 3 times a day as a reaction you may counter any spell you observe being cast) then it would work the way it seems to be intended without messing with the normal spell rules and without screwing up the logic too badly. That said, I would still have issues with a caster being able to do it during the casting of something else.

* - side note: in my game I took this idea one step further and threw in a spell "Arcane Denial" (yes, named after the Magic card) that on a failed save by target prevents target from arcane spellcasting for a round per level. Target can still use devices, scrolls, etc. that replicate spells; they just can't hard-cast anything from memory.

You have the same choice: either get on board and change your perspective of what's happening in the game world, or change the rules to reflect the model you're actually using.

Don't you mean 'change the rules to reflect the model the game itself is using in all other cases except this'?

Lan-"more and more I'm beginning to think - or at least hope - that this might have been an unintentional design mistake"-efan