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

[JacktheRabbit]

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 and 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.

Not possible at my table. I say "The Yuan-ti casts a fireball focused on the cleric, it will catch the rogue, paladin, and sorcerer." If anyone says anything other than "I cast counterspell" it is too late and the spell is cast. A reaction action is not something that can be debated at the table. I don't allow it.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

 

[Bradley Hindman]

Not possible at my table. I say "The Yuan-ti casts a fireball focused on the cleric, it will catch the rogue, paladin, and sorcerer." If anyone says anything other than "I cast counterspell" it is too late and the spell is cast. A reaction action is not something that can be debated at the table. I don't allow it.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

Obviously, I don't have that much control over the table But, more seriously, many of my players have a hard time making a decision and a little help from their friends speeds things up and makes it more enjoyable. Clearly other tables, like yours, will feel differently and may restrict table chatter.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Obviously, I don't have that much control over the table But, more seriously, many of my players have a hard time making a decision and a little help from their friends speeds things up and makes it more enjoyable. Clearly other tables, like yours, will feel differently and may restrict table chatter.

I just do my best to make sure a gaming session has more in it than one battle.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sadras]

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.

Okay well your above example reflects a difference in NPC roleplaying styles between us and the reason why we look at this situation differently. No problem.

 

[Sadras]

@Harzel, no sarcasm intended in previous post. Apologies if it came out that way.

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

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?

The 50/50 die roll option reflects the DM/NPC is not fit to decide and wants to play fair by leaving it to fate (a die roll).

The other option can be misapplied and might taste (to the players) of unfair DM knowledge should he counterspell it. You see why should the DM know the spells because he can be trusted to be objective but the players cannot be trusted to play their characters correctly/fairly and therefore are not allowed to know the spell?

 

[clearstream]

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.

I like this: the NPC should be played according to their predispositions. And those should be decided prior to the encounter. Are those the only types? I think there are at least three more

3) The NPC counterspells judiciously except where it believes the next cast will defeat them.

When they are on low hit points, they might switch to type 1). When they have just countered or resisted a spell that would have defeated them and might be being recast, they might remain type 2) except against the caster of that deadly spell. And we mustn't forget good ol' random

4) The NPC counterspells at random, or partly at random

and

5) The NPC prefers to Counterspell spells they don't recognise, because they find those most threatening!

 

[Sadras]

@vonklaude, hence I said Bradley and I have differing NPC styles - because the two examples he offered felt terribly limiting but suited the way he runs counterspell for NPCs.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I would imagine cantrips are easy and common enough for any spellcaster to recognize, no roll required, hence why they don't waste counterspell on them.

 

[clearstream]

I would imagine cantrips are easy and common enough for any spellcaster to recognize, no roll required, hence why they don't waste counterspell on them.

If you go with Passive Arcana and Religion DC 12 + spell level, then any character who has studied the subject will easily recognise such spells. Reward for their choices in character creation. Some characters who have failed to pay attention to their masters will fail to recognise even a cantrip.

No roll needed, either way.

 

[Yardiff]

@Harzel, no sarcasm intended in previous post. Apologies if it came out that way.



The 50/50 die roll option reflects the DM/NPC is not fit to decide and wants to play fair by leaving it to fate (a die roll).

The other option can be misapplied and might taste (to the players) of unfair DM knowledge should he counterspell it. You see why should the DM know the spells because he can be trusted to be objective but the players cannot be trusted to play their characters correctly/fairly and therefore are not allowed to know the spell?

My opinion on this post and others similar to it.
Seems to be a big lack of trust for the DM at some tables.