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

[Sadras]

Counterspell should be torn from the spell lists and hurled in the bog of eternal stench, never to be seen again.

Why? How do you believe magical duels should be handled - with Arcana/Religion checks? That could work.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Why? How do you believe magical duels should be handled - with Arcana/Religion checks? That could work.

Why - coz negating spells is boring!
How should wizards duel? By blasting the sh*t out of each other with their magics, o' course

 

[schnee]

So Holmwood begins casting Hold Person on Xarilyn, you as DM decide to roll a knowledge check to identify it in order to Counterspell it.

Sounds good.

So Holmwood begins casting Magic Missile on Xarilyn, you as DM decide not to roll a knowledge check because you have enough hit points to stomach it and you know the character has a Hold Person spell pending. So you save the Counterspell and don't bother making a knowledge check to identify the spell being cast. This seems like a lame way to go about it.

Terrible meta-gaming hostile DM bullhonky. Allow me to correct it to match the first one.

So Holmwood begins casting Magic Missile on Xarilyn, you as DM decide to roll a knowledge check to identify it in order to Counterspell it. The check is successful, and the monster decides to let it happen because you have enough hit points to stomach it and you know the character has a Hold Person spell pending. So you save the Counterspell because you used the knowledge check to identify the spell being cast.

Or, the failure case.

So Holmwood begins casting Magic Missile on Xarilyn, you as DM decide to roll a knowledge check to identify it in order to Counterspell it. The check fails, and the monster has to make a call about what to do. Based on the character of the monster, it will soak the spell (because of overconfidence, lack of spell slots left, trusting your magic resistance), or Counterspell anyway (because it feels great to shut another caster down, your grunts are getting low on hit points), etc.

edit: fixed a quote

 

[Sadras]

Terrible meta-gaming hostile DM bullhonky.

Agree, but personally I'm not 100% happy with the revisions because the DM is still in the know without having made a roll. See a DM may still counter without having made a successful knowledge check. I just feel we should cut the metagame bullhonkey to the minimum, since the DM knows, the players should know.

The only other way to do it using the rolling knowledge system - which I'd be happy with:

The player declares his character is casting a spell and writes spell on a piece of paper unseen by the DM. Places paper upside down in the centre of the table. NPC/monsters makes a knowledge check to identify spell and spell level slot utilised. If successful DM turns the piece of paper over revealing the spell, if not NPC/monsters makes a judgement call whether to counterspell an unknown spell.
Same goes for the characters attempting to identify an NPC/monster spell.

 

[lkwpeter]

Just tell them. Its not an easy decision to make, choosing whether to use the more common, lower level slots and risk failing, or sacrifice the more precious, higher level slots for a higher chance (or guarantee) at success.

Also, the question that usually comes before this is usually tough too: To Counterspell, or not to Counterspell?

Sounds reasonable to me. One the one hand, if you ask for too much checks, you slow down the game. On the other hand, religion/arcana are rarely used, so it could be encouraging to use them for these situations.

Maybe a compromise would be best: Tell the players, what spell is being cast. But if they want to know the exact spell level, they need to make a check.

 

[schnee]

Agree, but personally I'm not 100% happy with the revisions because the DM is still in the know without having made a roll. See a DM may still counter without having made a successful knowledge check. I just feel we should cut the metagame bullhonkey to the minimum, since the DM knows, the players should know.

The only other way to do it using the rolling knowledge system - which I'd be happy with:

The player declares his character is casting a spell and writes spell on a piece of paper unseen by the DM. Places paper upside down in the centre of the table. NPC/monsters makes a knowledge check to identify spell and spell level slot utilised. If successful DM turns the piece of paper over revealing the spell, if not NPC/monsters makes a judgement call whether to counterspell an unknown spell.
Same goes for the characters attempting to identify an NPC/monster spell.

I guess it depends on the table, and the trust. I come in with my monsters having an agenda and a strategy, and they run with it and what they'd plausibly know even if it's sub-optimal, because that feels more real.

I suppress my 'AD&D expert risk averse behavior' to play believable characters with flaws and lack of knowledge, so I get put into situations that are surprising. After dozens of years pixel-bitching optimally, It's fun.

I've been told that I play my monsters quite believably, and the players are having fun, so we don't see the need for that level of double-blind security.

 

[Sadras]

I guess it depends on the table, and the trust. I come in with my monsters having an agenda and a strategy, and they run with it and what they'd plausibly know even if it's sub-optimal, because that feels more real.

I suppress my 'AD&D expert risk averse behavior' to play believable characters with flaws and lack of knowledge, so I get put into situations that are surprising. After dozens of years pixel-bitching optimally, It's fun.

I've been told that I play my monsters quite believably, and the players are having fun, so we don't see the need for that level of double-blind security.

Cool, I'm sure many DMs do this.

If I had to do that at my table, it's because I'd like as a DM to be surprised too and play the game without having to supress the metagame side to make perhaps suboptimal ("realistic") choice to be the good DM. It be nice if things flowed naturally. I think this system would aid it and be entertaining as well.

 

[clearstream]

@vonklaude that is a little overboard, it is not about devaluing knowledge skills. Without arcana or religion you wouldn't be able to identify the spell at all. Why MUST there be a roll?

As a DM, if I roll for Athletics to jump a perilous pit, and Deception to fool a guard, then I should accord Arcana and Religion the same value in circumstances that count.

I see this as a decision about how well I reward players for their choices in character creation and advancement. When a player says - ""Well, I could take Stealth or Perception, because those are always good, but you know what, I think it'd be cool to take Arcana..." - then I want them to feel warm inside about that choice down the line.

 

[clearstream]

Why - coz negating spells is boring!
How should wizards duel? By blasting the sh*t out of each other with their magics, o' course

Hmm... for me that only works in tier-1. After that, the first meaningful cast that lands could easily end the duel.

That's one reason I love Counterspell, it shifts caster duels from - "I won initiative, so I won the duel" - to "I won initiative but she might counter my first cast so... how the heck am I going to play this!?"

Far more fun.

 

[Sadras]

I see this as a decision about how well I reward players for their choices in character creation and advancement. When a player says - ""Well, I could take Stealth or Perception, because those are always good, but you know what, I think it'd be cool to take Arcana..." - then I want them to feel warm inside about that choice down the line.

Unless I as DM impose the same blindness on myself I insist players should have, I see no reason to demand an arcana/religion check from them to identify spells cast by the enemy.