D&D 5E Xanathar's and Counterspell

[Warmaster Horus]

You started this with a complaint that PCs and NPCs weren't treated the same. I thought that was still the debate point we are on. In that context: yes, it is right since they are treated the same.

You can always make guesses on what the spell being cast is. If X casts and attack spell at Y and Y does a reaction spell, do you want to counterspell that reaction spell? It could be Counterspell. It could be Shield. But because it's from a very limited selection of reaction spells your guess is going to be much better. Yes, that is also right. (If it's a non-attack spell but does elemental damage, it could be Absorb Elements instead of Counterspell.)

I see. The point is, as you've surmised, that one caster (PC or NPC) is casting Counterspell blind. That doesn't seem fair from either a player or DM perspective as they're both burning resources on a hunch, rather than an informed decision (or chance at an informed decision).

 

[Charlaquin1]

How will you execute the passive check for an NPC or monster identifying a PC's spell when you don't know the spell the player is casting? Or are you just going to ask your players to trust you and have them tell you the spell before you make a decision?

I don’t really think it’s necessary to determine whether or not an NPC or monster recognizes a PC’s spell most of the time. It’s pretty rare that I have NPC’s/monsters use Reactions in response to PC’s spells, and I’m not going to ask my players to say “I cast a spell” and wait for a response before saying what spell and at what level every time on the off-off-off-chance that one of the NPCs/monsters knows Counterspell, has it prepared, has a spell slot of the appropriate level, has a Reaction available, and wants to use it on Counterspell. So, yeah, I suppose if it came up, the players would have to trust me. I don’t see a problem with that. Especially when, for the players, the passive check is behind like three other layers of opportunities to recognize the spell. Does the player recognize my description of a spell’s somatic and/or material components? If not, is their character capable of casting the spell? If not, have they witnessed this spell being cast during play before? If not, is their passive Intelligence (+Arcana) high enough to recognize the spell anyway? I don’t anticipate it getting that far very often.

 

[Caliburn101]

Counterspell is a very badly written spell per se.

Many spells have more than 60ft range, but you can only counterspell if the CASTER is within 60ft, not the TARGET, as it really should be.

Also, the main point of the thread is entirely correct, but the Shield spell point isn't quite right, as the reaction is to seeing the magic missiles fly out - which do not cover the intervening space instantly.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Counterspell is a very badly written spell per se.

Many spells have more than 60ft range, but you can only counterspell if the CASTER is within 60ft, not the TARGET, as it really should be.

Also, the main point of the thread is entirely correct, but the Shield spell point isn't quite right, as the reaction is to seeing the magic missiles fly out - which do not cover the intervening space instantly.

The opposing caster is the target of counterspell, though.

 

[Blue]

I see. The point is, as you've surmised, that one caster (PC or NPC) is casting Counterspell blind. That doesn't seem fair from either a player or DM perspective as they're both burning resources on a hunch, rather than an informed decision (or chance at an informed decision).

"Fair" is subjective. If the DM required PCs to counterspell unknown and did not allow the same of the players I'd say that's inconsistant, which I agree is unfair.

Is it innately unfair that creatures (player or DM controlled) need to counterspell without absolute knowledge? The DM in the descrition doesn't seem to think so. Yes, not having knowledge of the spell being cast weakens the Counterspell, but since I see that spell taken very often at different tables I have to assume it's not a weak spell in the first place - heck, weakening it some may make it more fair and less of a must-take.

If you feel it's unfair by all means talk to your DM. You should be on the same page for everyone's fun. But I wouldn't suggest leading with "it's inherently unfair that everyone can see...".

 

[Warmaster Horus]

"Fair" is subjective. If the DM required PCs to counterspell unknown and did not allow the same of the players I'd say that's inconsistant, which I agree is unfair.

Is it innately unfair that creatures (player or DM controlled) need to counterspell without absolute knowledge? The DM in the descrition doesn't seem to think so. Yes, not having knowledge of the spell being cast weakens the Counterspell, but since I see that spell taken very often at different tables I have to assume it's not a weak spell in the first place - heck, weakening it some may make it more fair and less of a must-take.

If you feel it's unfair by all means talk to your DM. You should be on the same page for everyone's fun. But I wouldn't suggest leading with "it's inherently unfair that everyone can see...".

You hit on a crux of this whole discussion. At the heart is perhaps a feeling that Counterspell is too powerful. I've seen it used, often in a flurry of back-and-forths, to good effect. However every casting of it is a 3rd level or higher spell, which are very limited caster resources, so in that way there is an inherent balance. But Xanathar's suggested answer to this question is to make casters (unless using the 'sniper spotter' solution) use Counterspell blind. That seems to me like a gross over-correction.

I have said before that I would accept, as many DMs implement, some sort of on-the-caster's-list and/or Arcana check allowed to identify a spell being cast prior to the possible use of Counterspell. Heck, even burn a reaction to do so, as long as that reaction could also be used in reference to that spell, like casting Counterspell or some other ability (Monster Hunter Ranger does something like this).

 

[Bacon Bits]

Ignoring all of the hypothetical realism of spell identification, this rule seems like it would slow down play since every spell casting must now be a two step reveal on the DM's side and the players' side (eg "I am casting a spell." <pause for decision point to identify or counter> "The spell is ______________.")

I'd be curious to hear from playtesters as to how this affected their games.

That's a very good point. Frankly, "What spell did they cast?" isn't a particularly interesting or exciting challenge. So why bother stopping the game to make the players roll dice? If the challenge isn't interesting, don't bother rolling.

That makes me less inclined to use this rule unless there's something preventing or restricting what the skilled character sees. I will probably retain my current rule of, "Are you a Spellcaster proficient in Arcana? Then in most cases you can identify any spell being cast. Are you only one of those? Then it's a bit harder, but you probably can. Are you neither? Then you see a dude chanting and waving his arms around. And he's evil, so he's doing it menacingly." Still, I appreciate the DC rule of thumb, and like the idea of advantage if it's on your list.

Honestly, the only reason to make this change at all is because you feel like counterspell is overpowered or you want identification of spells being cast or magical effects being encountered to be arbitrarily difficult. The latter issue is really quite minor; most every spell effect in the game has pretty straightforward effects that the PCs are going to figure out pretty quickly. If the DM really wants something kept secret, he can just have it cast beforehand or whatever.

If you really, really think counterspell is overpowered, just nerf it. You could remove the whole "At Higher Levels" bit, or do something like:

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of Casting a Spell. If the creature is Casting a Spell of 1st level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is Casting a Spell of 2nd level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the interrupted spell has no effect if its level is two or more levels less than the level of the spell slot you used.

As others have said, dispel magic had a counterspell mode in earlier editions. Of course, nobody ever used it because of the failure chance and because the check was basically an opposed caster level check. PCs are essentially always at a disadvantage in that situation. Dispel magic also worked on multiple spells if it was targetted, so it was usually better to cast it later on as a targetted dispel.

 

[jgsugden]

I plan to play it as written, but I could see alowing a person to roll a check to identify the spell... and then rolling the check again if they decide they want to counterspell.

The first check identifies the spell. The second allows you to counterspell. Either or both could fail.

Succeed then fail? You know what the spell is but identified it too late to counterspell it.
Fail then succeed? You can counterspell it, but do not know what it is.

 

[Charlaquin1]

I plan to play it as written, but I could see alowing a person to roll a check to identify the spell... and then rolling the check again if they decide they want to counterspell.

The first check identifies the spell. The second allows you to counterspell. Either or both could fail.

Succeed then fail? You know what the spell is but identified it too late to counterspell it.
Fail then succeed? You can counterspell it, but do not know what it is.

Counterspell only requires a check if you misidentifying the level of the spell you are trying to counter or don’t have a spell slot of the appropriate level available, so even doing it this way is a slight nerf to Counterspell. YMMV on whether or not that’s a bad thing.

That's a very good point. Frankly, "What spell did they cast?" isn't a particularly interesting or exciting challenge. So why bother stopping the game to make the players roll dice? If the challenge isn't interesting, don't bother rolling.

“What Spell did they cast?” is not an interesting challenge, but “how do you react to an unfamiliar spell being cast?” can be, if it is possible for creatures to cast spells without them being instantly recognized. That’s why I describe spells by the components used to cast them rather than just saying what the spell is. It gives you enough information to make a meaningful decision (as opposed to a blind guess), but leaves room for the possibility of incomplete information. At that point, checks to identify a spell become a saftey net for players who’s characters could believably recognize a spell by its components, but don’t have the description of every spell memorized.

 

[Caliburn101]

The opposing caster is the target of counterspell, though.

That's what I said....