D&D 5E Spell -> Counterspell -> Counterspell (from same character that casts 1st spell) - possible?

[Lanefan]

I have seen this in Tier 2.
Npc Fireball
PC 1 Counterspell
Npc Counterspell (haa)
PC 2 Counterspell the counterspell.
It totally weird but it legal.

I did notice that when my group with no arcane caster (Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, Monk, Rogue) went into a fight against a Lich, the Cleric was basically unable to cast spells, unless he could hide behind something. It made for interesting tactics, granted.

Winning at Counterspell

The Counterspell game is won by whichever side casts Counterspell last, like musical chairs only with hideous death from fireball.

rant

Welcome, folks, to stupid Magic the Gathering-style counterspell wars that have absolutely no place in D&D.

The D&D game world (in theory) uses real time which by simple logic means that spells of the same action type (i.e. casting time) should resolve first-in-first-out, as opposed to Magic that uses an arbitrary last-in-first-out 'stack' which has nonsensically been applied here.

Never mind the manner in which a caster who is already committed to casting her main spell can interrupt herself in mid-cast in order to cast another spell (in this case counterspell) and then if successful resume her original spell as if nothing had happened.

5e has some good design to it, but every time I see reference to this I shake my head in disappointment.

/rant

Lan-"yes, what I'm saying means that if counterspell is a thing in the game it should always trump the main spell being cast - deal with it"-efan

 

[dave2008]

That answer is wrong.

Maybe, but...

PHB pg 202:
"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of one action."

Wizards Turn:
1) Casts fireball
2) Sorcerer uses a reaction to cast Counterspell on the Wizards turn
3) Wizard has a reaction, but can only cast a cantrip as noted above. Counterspell is not a cantrip.
4) End of Wizards Turn

The text quoted above is in the section about bonus actions, but it applies to all spell casting.

 

[dave2008]

5e has some good design to it, but every time I see reference to this I shake my head in disappointment.

/rant

Of course that is not how counterspell works per Perkins, see post #39; and my explanation on post #42. So you should be good to go!

 

[Bacon Bits]

Welcome, folks, to stupid Magic the Gathering-style counterspell wars that have absolutely no place in D&D.

If you don't like it, don't play that way.

"The rules do not describe it or forbid it" <> "It's explicitly legal and you must allow it."

And, yeah, Sage Advice lists this exact question in the Sage Advice Compendium (p12, top of second column). Remember, however, Sage Advice only cares about what the rules literally say. Even though they claim to answer based on designer intent, there's no way that this and many other questions they choose to answer were design intent of that specific rules interaction. The number of times they've contradicted themselves is more than enough evidence for that.



I don't buy the "D&D Adventurers League exists and I might have to play that way!" argument anymore, either. Are you DM? Rule how you want. As far as I can tell, the only guidance the Adventures League DMs Guide gives is, " Always follow this golden rule when you DM for a group: Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure when possible." and "You Are Empowered. You get to make decisions about how the group interacts with the NPCs and environment within this adventure. It is okay to make considerable changes or engage in improvisation, so long as you maintain the original spirit of what’s written." The only thing WotC really determines is which optional rules and character creation rules the campaign uses.

If the store makes your DM style a dealbreaker, you may not want to run your game in Adventurers League. If I were DM and I weren't allowed to make the ruling that was best for my game because of what people outside the game said, I might not be very interested in continuing the game as it indicates a real problem with trust. You should consider becoming a Premiere Play organizer yourself if this is the only way you can conceivably play. Are you a player? Listen to your DM. You're not supposed to like and agree with everything they do. If they're not being a fair DM, it's going to exhibit it beyond just an arbitrary ruling. On the other hand, you're so particular that you must always be right and your interpretation must always be accepted, you probably shouldn't be playing a social game like D&D at all.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The text quoted above is in the section about bonus actions, but it applies to all spell casting.

No, it doesn't, it only applies to "Bonus Action" casting-time spells.

There are situation where a character can cast two "1 Action" casting-time spells in a round. For example, Action Surge.

 

[dave2008]

If you don't like it, don't play that way.

"The rules do not describe it or forbid it" <> "It's explicitly legal and you must allow it."

And, yeah, Sage Advice lists this exact question in the Sage Advice Compendium (p12, top of second column). Remember, however, Sage Advice only cares about what the rules literally say. Even though they claim to answer based on designer intent, there's no way that this and many other questions they choose to answer were design intent of that specific rules interaction. The number of times they've contradicted themselves is more than enough evidence for that.

You just need to look at Chris's Sage Advice tweet linked to in post #39 to get the exact opposite answer. Furthermore, I believe the answer Perkins gave is RAW a I noted in post #42. I also agree that you can play it however you want!

 

[Lanefan]

If you don't like it, don't play that way.

"The rules do not describe it or forbid it" <> "It's explicitly legal and you must allow it."

Oh absolutely; but I still shake my head and sigh...

And, yeah, Sage Advice lists this exact question in the Sage Advice Compendium (p12, top of second column).

[MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION] this is where it comes from, trumping the PH as far as I know.

Remember, however, Sage Advice only cares about what the rules literally say. Even though they claim to answer based on designer intent, there's no way that this and many other questions they choose to answer were design intent of that specific rules interaction. The number of times they've contradicted themselves is more than enough evidence for that.

Yeah, nothing new there. I seem to recall Sage Advice sometimes causing more headaches than it solved when it was printed in Dragon in the '80s...

I don't buy the "D&D Adventurers League exists and I might have to play that way!" argument anymore, either.

I have nothing to do with AL so I get to happily avoid all that.

I just prefer it when the 'official' game rules have some consistent internal logic behind them...which they mostly do (and mostly have done through the editions - even though the particular logic may have changed from edition to edition it's usually been reasonably consistent within any edition) except for sore-thumb corner cases like this...if for no other reason than one knows what to try and stay consistent with when changing things to suit oneself and-or one's table.

Lanefan

 

[dave2008]

No, it doesn't, it only applies to "Bonus Action" casting-time spells.

Possibly, but if that was the intent it is confusing enough that Chris Perkins believed it applied to spellcasting in general (again per his tweet in post #39).

 

[dave2008]

[MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION] this is where it comes from, trumping the PH as far as I know.

Of course that doesn't make the 2nd interpretation (in the PDF) correct, it just makes it official.

 

[Tormyr]

Personally, I read counterspell as one spell that is a reaction for a specific situation as being more specific than the more general rule of the bonus action only allowing a cantrip to go along with it. Because of that, I allow the counterspell to be used regardless of the spell originally cast.